Xref: utzoo comp.lang.eiffel:242 comp.lang.c++:3584
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!aro
From: aro@aber-cs.UUCP (Andrew Ormsby)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++
Message-ID: <988@aber-cs.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jun 89 10:24:36 GMT
References: <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: aro%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: CS Dept, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
Lines: 46

In article <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary) writes:
>  I've been programming in C for about 5 years, and
>just recently started using C++.  I would like to
>start a discussion of Eiffel vs. C++.  I understand
>that both languages use C as a base language, and
>that both implement OOP features, and it seems as
>though the two have much more in common, aside from
>syntactic differences, than they have differences.

It is true that current implementations of Eiffel use C as a base
language. With Eiffel, however, the use of C is really as a portable
assembler that the Eiffel translator can compile into. This has
presumably greatly reduced the development costs of the compiler for
Interactive Software Engineering, Meyer's firm. There is the added
advantage that it enables them to make use of the machine dependent
optimisers that are usually part of the C compilation systems on
various machines. However, I would contend that the fact that Eiffel
uses C as a "base language" is only an implementation detail.

C++ is very different. To quote Stroustrup in the introduction to the
C++ book, "Except for minor details, C++ is a superset of the C
programming language". C++, quite deliberately, therefore ends up
looking very much like C.

While most current C++ translators are implemented as preprocessors
for C compilers, there are a growing number of true C++ compilers.

My view is that C++ is what people should be using as an alternative
for C in applications where C was really necessary; where there are
programmers around who know how to use it properly. My worry is that
C++'s additional complexity over and above C will make it even more
likely that bad C++ programs are written.  Eiffel may be more
appropriate as a general purpose language; my personal opinion is that
it looks likely to be less easily misused. However, C++ is widely
available and cheap. Eiffel is less widely available and rather
expensive. Its a shame.

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>~ David Geary, Boeing Aerospace, Seattle                 ~ 
>~ "I wish I lived where it *only* rains 364 days a year" ~
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Andy Ormsby,				aro@cs.aber.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science,		aro%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsf-relay.ac.uk
University College of Wales,		aro%cs.aber.ac.uk@ukacrl.bitnet
Aberystwyth, Dyfed, UK, SY23 3BZ.