Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: C++ Productivity
Message-ID: <D3zv07.DGt@research.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
References: <1995Feb1.184049.16332@rcmcon.com> <D3E33s.DCp@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest <D3yqBy.EB0@syacus.acus.oz.au>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 14:31:19 GMT
Lines: 29
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:112694 comp.lang.smalltalk:20826 comp.object:26705

In article <D3yqBy.EB0@syacus.acus.oz.au> ian@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ian Joyner) writes:

> Good points up to here. (I know this post is quite old, but we have
> just received it). However, I would like to correct the notion that
> those who don't get on with C++ are not very bright. In fact the
> brightest, and most experienced people are those who can step
> back from a problem, and solve it with lateral thinking. In the
> case of C++ the brightest people step back and say "there's got
> to be a better way."

An awful lot of programming language work reminds me of the
drunk who lost his watch one night and was found looking for
it under a lamp post hundreds of feet away because that's where
the light was.

It's easy to find better ways of solving problems -- just redefine
the problems and ignore the parts you don't like.  If you don't have
that luxury, and the problem you're trying to solve is to
enable C programmers to write more abstract programs in
industrial applications, then I think C++ is the only
candidate for a solution.  Moreover, I do not think C++ could
have been improved in any significant respect without reducing
the probability of acceptance by the C community.

If you don't care about acceptance by C programmers, there
are lots of interesting languages out there.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@research.att.com
