Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok From: ok@goanna.oz.au (Richard O'keefe) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language Message-ID: <2941@goanna.oz.au> Date: 5 Mar 90 06:46:55 GMT References: <6960@internal.Apple.COM> <259@eiffel.UUCP> <8113@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 63 In article <8113@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, g2k@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Frederic Giacometti) writes: > Firstly, let me clear up my position on the C/C++ problem: I agree > completely with B. Meyer on C/C++. Is it being arrogant to say > that C++ is no more than a bricolage around C when it is the mere truth ? I'm about to pick a nit, so I'll start by saying that -- I found a year's course on category theory easier to understand than C++. I used to read comp.lang.c++ but was frightened off. -- the ISE compiler for Eiffel generates C as its output -- I would be very happy if Eiffel outsold C++ -- Eiffel has no published formal definition *either*. > Thirdly, I admire the courage of B. Meyer who successfully started his > own independent business. What he is doing is unique in the annals of > computer science: to centre the development of a new company around the > development of a language. This is hardly unique. What about Objective-C? What about the Edinburgh team that developed Edinburgh Prolog and then founded Quintus? What about the earlier attempt (that failed) to build a small company around Pop? What about ParcPlace? There are lots more examples... > And I assert that it is a certificate of quality about the language. No. All that it certifies is that (a) the founders of the company believed in the language and that (b) they were about to persuade a moneylender that the company was a good risk. > If you look at the history of computer science, > major developments (Apple is the exception) have usually been produced > by major corporations rather than by motivated individuals. It is not clear that this is the case. (1) In many cases developments are _initiated_ by motivated individuals and taken over by corporations. (2) In many other cases, developments are brought about by motivated individuals _within_ major corporations. Not everything that a corporation does is initiated by the board of directors! For example, IBM didn't really want to get into computers in the first place; the man who wanted them to do so had to go out and get orders for the machines *first* before T.J.Watson could be persuaded. > So far, C++ has taken up not much because of its intrinsic value, but > because of the support of AT&T. Is this really true? In day to day terms, what does "the support of AT&T" amount to? It doesn't mean rapid bug fixes. I was under the impression that the great appeal of C++ was that you could move into it gradually, starting out just using it as a better C compiler and learning the extra features one by one, never having the sensation of learning a whole new language. Really good programmers are not afraid of learning a whole new language, and will do it if they have reason to believe it will pay off. There are lots of programmers who are reluctant to change. > Eiffel has a very strong theoretical and formal support. It is the > product of a rigorous approach. If there is a formal specification of Eiffel (version 2.2 for choice) I would very much like to see it. "Eiffel: The Language" says quite clearly (section 2.3) "This book is not a "formal" description of Eiffel". Alas, it's as close as we get.