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!tstevens
From: tstevens@netcom.com (Edward Stevens)
Subject: Re: C++ Productivity
Message-ID: <tstevensD3GE1E.Evx@netcom.com>
Keywords: C++ Productivity Smalltalk
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <1995Jan23.193745.7044@boole.com> <jim.fleming.84.00133AB6@bytes.com> <1995Jan25.201226.28856@rcmcon.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 02:10:26 GMT
Lines: 90
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:110847 comp.lang.smalltalk:20335 comp.object:26095

rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin) writes:

>>> jka@boole.com (John Ahlstrom) writes:
>>>[...] I was also interested in stories about GOOD C++ productivity.

>jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>>I am not sure such a thing exists...now after 15 years many people
>>have spent a lot of time looking for productivity in C++ and finding
>>it in other places...at least C++ caused them to look beyond C...although
>>some of us have been very productive in C...

>This is an extremely warped view of the history of C++.  One might
>think you had an axe to grind.  In the 15 years that C++ has been
>evolving, it has steadily grown in popularity.  Presumably this was because
>people liked it, and found it useful.  

>In any case, let me describe my current, and very pleasant,
>experiences with C++.

>I, and my associates, are in the midsts of a very large project.  We
>have been using C++ for two years, and have a year or so to go.  We
>have found, as time goes by, that we are able to reuse more and more
>of our classes.  (We are, of course, designing the code with reuse in
>mind.)  Projects which used to take X weeks to complete, are now
>taking roughly one third the time.  

>We have created a strong foundation of classes in C++.  We have also
>employed the principles of dependency management to ensure that our
>compiles do not thrash, that our classes are reusable, and that when
>changes occur, those changes do not ripple throughout the rest of the
>code.  This strategy has paid off in spades.

>>It is difficult to find any large C++ successes...

>Not in my business.  My customers (many of whom are very large,
>multi-billion dollar, corporations) are quite pleased with the results
>they obtain from C++.  And, to judge from the popularity of the
>language, many other people are too.

>>The market did not make a choice...these decisions are
>>made by the czars of information technology that live in
>>ivory towers...

>No.  You are quite mistaken about that.  Most of the early popularity
>of C++ was based upon grass roots acceptance by engineers.  Current
>popularity is based also upon availability and third party support.

>Besides, how can you say that the market did not make a choice?  Of
>course it did.  People are buying C++ compilers in droves.  They are
>not buying Eiffel, or Smalltalk, or C+@ compilers in anything like the
>numbers that C++ compilers are being sold.  That represents a choice.

Choice yes, perhaps a little ignorance or lack of empowerment besides.
Goethe once said something to the effect that he who knows but one language
does not know his own. Somewhere in the recent past studies indicated that
80% of C++ users used it as a better C. So its market dominance is no
surprise. Smalltalk has been with us since the 1970s and it is now generally
accepted that it has achieved some permanence. Eiffel is gaining more 
recognition as well. Investing the time to look at other approaches will
occasionaly payoff for the user organization, not necessarily displacing 
the status quo. 

Ted Stevens

>You may argue that the choice is uninformed, but that is counter to my
>experience.  Many of the people that I work with who have chosen C++
>have done so for sound reasons.  You may argue that the decision was
>forced upon them by some kind of "Czar" but that's just conspiracy
>theory.  C++ is where it is today because it caught the popular
>attention, and then was found to be useful.

>>Besides, who said the games was over...??

>The game is never over.  Someday, perhaps real soon, some other
>language will gain the ascendancy over C++.  And the people who don't
>like that language will say "The market really didn't make that
>choice."  Whatever that language is, it will have its day in the sun,
>and then some other language will displace it.  etc.


>-- 
>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++
-- 
/////                      tstevens@netcom.com                  \\\\\
>>>>>                  ZumaSoft (TEL) V/F 310/457-6263          <<<<<
<<<<<     OO Analysis & Design, Enterprise Modeling, Training   >>>>>
\\\\\     'Thank you for your wine, California' - Mick Jagger   /////
