Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++
Message-ID: <6590141@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 89 17:02:02 GMT
References: <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 22

> > I have heard rumers [sic] that there are a lot more problems in general with
> > compilers for Eiffel than with compilers for C++.  Perhaps someone can
> > illuminate.
> 
> 	I'll be straightforward. We, the developers of Eiffel, are fed up
> with ``rumers'' and slander. That the proponents of C++ are desperate
> for technical arguments is understandable, but does not justify everything.

Well, for what its worth, the "rumers" I was talking about can from people
who are evaluating a wide variety of OOPLs -- not C++ "proponents" or
vendors.  People who consistently read this notes string know I am less
than totally enamored of the quality of C++ compilers too.  But, I am
convinced that C++  compilers are now good enough to do serious 
commercial work.

Since I was unable to verify these Eiffel problems myself [not having an Eiffel
compiler], I labeled them "rumors."

I don't know about "slander", but I do think Meyer could have presented a 
more honest portrayal of C++ than presented in his book.  Still, I think
he presents some interesting OOP points, if one is able to filter out all
the dogma.