Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!satisfied.elf.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!rcm!rmartin
From: rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin)
Subject: Re: C++ Productivity
References: <1995Jan23.193745.7044@boole.com> <jim.fleming.84.00133AB6@bytes.com> <1995Jan25.201226.28856@rcmcon.com> <jim.fleming.75.0003AF13@bytes.com> <3gls1u$p2l@osfa.aber.ac.uk> <1995Feb1.184049.16332@rcmcon.com> <D3E33s.DCp@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest <D3IAw9.6FH@syacus.acus.oz.au>
Organization: R. C. M. Consulting Inc. 708-918-1004
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 18:48:30 GMT
Message-ID: <1995Feb6.184830.18048@rcmcon.com>
Lines: 98
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:111222 comp.lang.smalltalk:20425 comp.object:26236


rmartin said:
>>Certainly it is large and complex.  But not "too large" nor "too
>>complex".  If it were, then it would not be selling as well as it is.
>>You can claim that the purchasers don't really know what they are
>>buying, but that is a pretty weak argument.

ian@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ian Joyner) writes:

>Robert, you have been saying these things so long that you are starting
>to believe them. 

I believe them, because I work with many companies who use C++ and I
don't see the "lemming syndrome" working at these sites.  In nearly
every case, C++ was brought into the organization in the face of
resistance by management.  In nearly every case, it was engineering
that was championing the transition.  In nearly every case, those
engineers that were driving the change were intelligent and informed.

>In a previous post in this thread you made out that
>most made a concious and intelligent choice to use C++, based on
>literature, etc. However, most have just migrated from C to C++.

Many have, yes.  But not without forethought, not blindly.

>This got C++ started. 

What got C++ started was very wide acceptance by the engineering community.  

>Others have now followed, seeing that C++ has
>grown to critical mass. 

I will not disagree that the prevalence of C++ is not a factor in
other people's decision to use C++.  Of course this must be so.  Third
party support, multiple suppliers, access to engineers who are
experienced with the language, all contribute in the decision making
process.

>If you ask most places if they had experience
>in OO before using C++, or aside from C++, the answer is most often
>no.

Quite so.

>The popularity of C++ does not prove its technical excellence. 

Indeed not.  It only proves its technical adequacy.

>Indeed
>it is popular despite its shortcomings. Any assertions that C++ would
>not be selling as well if it were overcomplex are groundless. Clearly,
>technical excellence has little to do with good sales in this industry,
>and good sales do not indicate technical excellence.

If the language were so complex that nobody could understand or use
it, it would not sell.  It would never have gotten started.  The fact
is, people can and do use it productively.

>Also do not forget the number of places that are just using C++ as the
>next version of C compiler. Microsoft and Borland have also put a
>lot of effort into their C++ environments, so people are using C++
>for the environments, not for the language.

A language without an environment is probably a thing of the past.

>C++ is a language that is dogged by controversy, and it always will
>be. 

Yes, as any success story is bound to be.

>It has clearly crippled the OO paradigm, ...

One man's clarity is another mans opacity.  I do not find the OO
paradigm to be crippled by C++.  Nor do my associates.  It must be
that your OO is different from my OO.  

>...the case against C++ is legitimate. 

Yes, it is.  So is the case *for* C++.  And the Jury will decide with
their dollars.  And that decision is not final, it will be made every
day, and will change as time goes on.

>We need to recognise this, so that it is established
>that work in other areas of OO are necessary to correct this mess.

A POLL:  Do any of you out there who are currently using C++ think
that C++ is the "be all and end all" language?  Do you think that it
is a good thing that others, (like Dr. Joyner) are working on
improving the technology?  Do you want to see new langauges invented
and tried?  Are you interested in trying some yourself?

(My answers:  No, yes, yes, yes.)

-- 
Robert Martin       | Design Consulting   | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor Assoc.| rmartin@rcmcon.com  |   Object Oriented Analysis
2080 Cranbrook Rd.  | Tel: (708) 918-1004 |   Object Oriented Design
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (708) 918-1023 |   C++
