Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!hunter.premier.net!netaxs.com!news.fast.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!uucp1.uu.net!world!bobduff
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
Message-ID: <E4t1u2.Bx0@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <JSA.97Jan16141937@alexandria> <E4oMBG.62@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl> <E4p4qH.4A@world.std.com> <32EFB3D4.167E@hso.link.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 04:58:50 GMT
Lines: 29
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:244231 comp.lang.smalltalk:50397 comp.lang.eiffel:17964 comp.lang.ada:56815 comp.object:60559 comp.software-eng:53157

In article <32EFB3D4.167E@hso.link.com>,
Stanley R. Allen <s_allen@hso.link.com> wrote:
>Robert A Duff wrote:
>> So I don't buy the idea that you can just choose whatever language is
>> best for each module, and then paste them together.
>
>In the future this may be commonplace and quite easy, if everyone can
>specify their interfaces in a 'neutral' language like CORBA's IDL.

Nah.  IDL is just one more language.  Interfacing between IDL and
(whatever-your-favorite-programming-language) is costly.  It's worth it,
sometimes, but nonetheless costly.

There is no "language neutral" language, IMHO.  Nor can there be.

IDL supports multiple inheritance, but some languages don't.  For
example.

>Having a neutral interface language with standard mappings would go
>a long way to improving the programming landscape.  CORBA IDL may
>herald a renaissance of multi-linguism in software development,
>something which has been slowly dying over the last decade, mainly
>due to the need to conform to C as the least-common denominator
>for interfacing.  

IDL (and/or something like it) can improve things, but it's no panacea,
IMHO.

- Bob
