Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!gmi!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!news.ci.com.au!syacus!ian
From: ian@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ian Joyner)
Subject: Re: C++ Productivity
References: <3hlru1$6fb@apocalypse.dmi.stevens-tech.edu>
Message-ID: <D3yrI0.EpC@syacus.acus.oz.au>
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, ACUS
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 00:18:00 GMT
Lines: 48
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:112620 comp.lang.smalltalk:20812 comp.object:26685

I'm not sure who wrote this:

>>Bjarne Stroustrup is very clear about why he developed C++ (at least
>>he seemed clear to me). He wanted to provide the benefits of things
>>like abstraction and information hiding to real programmers writing
>>real programs. He wanted to avoid sterile intellectual quest for
>>the perfect langauge.

I think the characterisation of the search for better languages as
a 'sterile intellectual quest' is quite wrong. It is clearly based
on the pragmatics of the economics of software production. If anyone
reads my critique, they will realise this is why I criticise C++.
Some have said that this is mere philosophising, and have used other
terms to put down this section of the critique. However, it is
essential to understand that I and others involved in the criticism
of C++ are not merely involved in a 'sterile intellectual quest'.

We must get a better industry, and for the customers benefit we must
stop inventing technologies that we get locked into.

A few sentences that I have underlined from Stroustrup's 2nd edition,
that says why he developed C++ are as follows:

"C++ was designed primarily that the author and his friends would not
have to program in assembler, C, or various modern high-level languages.
It main purpose is to make writing good programs easier and more pleasant
for the individual programmer." (Chapter 0 pp 4-5).

Dr. Stroustrup states this, and I find it very honest. However, it is the
attempt to use C++ way beyond the bounds of this charter that causes
problems. That C++ was designed for the individual programmer means that
it is not intended for large scale professional software projects.
I would agree that C++ is more pleasant to write in THAN C, but for
small things, perhaps not easier.

While there have certainly been large scale projects which have been
successful in C++ (I myself have been involved with one), the problem
is it is not really intended for beyond the individual. And it is
a common observation in C/C++ programs that you need the original
author to work out what is going on. That it fulfils the purpose
of making programs easier and more pleasant to write is frequently
debated, and C++ has well been overtaken in this by languages which
have been designed with large scale software development as their
vision, let alone those which are more suited to the individual.
-- 
Ian Joyner           |"for when lenity and cruelty play   |All opinions are
Unisys (ACUS)        | for a kingdom, the gentler gamester|personal and are not
ian@syacus.acus.oz.au| is the soonest winner" W.S. Henry V|Unisys official comment
