Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:3600 comp.lang.eiffel:249
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!plogan
From: plogan@mntgfx.mentor.com (Patrick Logan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++
Message-ID: <1989Jun8.172152.2069@mntgfx.mentor.com>
Date: 9 Jun 89 00:21:51 GMT
References: <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP> <6590138@hplsla.HP.COM> <149@eiffel.UUCP> <233@pink.ACA.MCC.COM> <1989Jun6.171549.16028@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation, Beaverton Oregon
Lines: 42
In-reply-to: henry@utzoo.uucp's message of 6 Jun 89 17:15:49 GMT

In article <1989Jun6.171549.16028@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
:)   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.

Instead of the phrase "doing it right" I think it would be more fair
to paraphrase with "doing it according to some principles of sound
software construction."  As I read it, the phrase "doing it right"
carries more self-righteousness than I felt existed in the original
article. The article mentioned or referred to the guiding principles.

:)   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

The logic here seems to be the following:
    The argument of C++ vs. Eiffel is similar to the typical C vs. Pascal argument.
    Therefore Eiffel is in the Pascal "camp".
    Therefore Eiffel will have the same problems as Pascal.

I wouldn't consider this sound logic. Its application could lead
someone away from even attempting to evaluate Eiffel.

-- 
Patrick Logan                | ...!{decwrl,sequent,tessi}!mntgfx!plogan 
Mentor Graphics Corporation  | plogan@pdx.MENTOR.COM                    
Beaverton, Oregon            | "My other computer is a Lisp machine."