Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!nagle
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: C+@ vs C++ Was C++ Productivity
Message-ID: <nagleD3Cq9M.1Mn@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <jim.fleming.84.00133AB6@bytes.com> <19950127.093932.289762.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU> <DJOHNSON.95Jan28152443@arnold.ucsd.edu> <D35AIp.A12@research.att.com> <jim.fleming.73.000331E4@bytes.com> <1995Jan31.135658.8613@rcmcon.com> <jim.fleming.116.0005C923@bytes.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 02:44:10 GMT
Lines: 17
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:110438 comp.lang.smalltalk:20211 comp.object:25953

jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes as if there's 
an anti-C+@ conspiracy.

      It's not impossible to promote a new language.  Look at Osterholt's
TCL, which fills a niche like that of Visual Basic for UNIX users.
TCL is a truly awful language; the syntax is painful, the scoping is
appalling, and the performance is poor.  But it's adequate for writing
little interactive programs, it's free, and there aren't many alternatives
in the UNIX market.

      It's really hard to promote a single-vendor language, unless
you're as big as Microsoft.  Remember Actor?  Neon?  Prograph?  Mesa?
The demise of the whole Pascal/Modula family is harder to explain,
since those languages had a solid track record of good software
implemented in them.

					John Nagle
