Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++
Message-ID: <1989Jun6.171549.16028@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP> <6590138@hplsla.HP.COM> <149@eiffel.UUCP> <233@pink.ACA.MCC.COM>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 89 17:15:49 GMT

In article <233@pink.ACA.MCC.COM> rfg@pink.aca.mcc.com.UUCP (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>For me, Eiffel  was kind of like a chastity belt.  It definitely keeps
>you "pure" but you will probably have less fun. :-)

It struck me, in fact, that a good many of Dr. Meyer's comparisons between
C++ and Eiffel boiled down to "C++ lets the programmer foul things up in
any way he pleases, while Eiffel insists on doing it right".  This is, in
fact, a long-standing philosophical difference between the C camp and the
Pascal camp.  C has always given you more than enough rope to hang yourself
with, which means that writing clean, well-behaved programs in C requires
competence, experience, and strict self-discipline... qualities that are
all too rare in the real world.  On the other hand, all that rope can be
quite useful when the problem to be tamed is large and obstreperous.  The
Pascal side favors using the language to impose discipline, which makes it
a LOT easier to get reliable, well-behaved programs but can make it harder
to get the desired results with those programs.  Which set of tradeoffs is
better depends on the circumstances and the people.

(Me?  I find the Pascal theory very attractive but at the moment am fully
in the C camp for pragmatic reasons.  Combining the virtues of the two
ought not to be impossible but seems to be difficult in practice.  Perhaps
a mixed approach is better than trying to pick one or the other.)
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu