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!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!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: <1995Jan23.193745.7044@boole.com> <jim.fleming.84.00133AB6@bytes.com> 	<1995Jan25.201226.28856@rcmcon.com> <1995Jan26.150433@lglsun.epfl.ch> 	<1995Jan27.165208.5951@rcmcon.com> <DAVIDM.95Feb2103620@halfdome.prism.kla.com>
Message-ID: <D3I8Fu.67H@syacus.acus.oz.au>
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, ACUS
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 02:04:42 GMT
Lines: 46
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:110969 comp.lang.smalltalk:20360 comp.object:26138

davidm@prism.kla.com (David S. Masterson) writes:

>>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Martin <rmartin@rcmcon.com> writes:

>> nebbe@lglsun.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) writes:

>>> If my choice is between C, Pascal, C++, Eiffel, Ada, SmallTalk ... then C++
>>> isn't very likely to come out on top.

>> That is *your* choice.  But the industry has apparently chosen differently
>> -- for now.  I don't accept your assertion that most organizations are
>> unable to look at different languages.  Most organizations have engineers
>> who are constantly looking at new languages and new tools, because they are
>> interested, not because it is there job.  These engineers eventually make
>> recommendations to other engineers, and to their managers.

>However, like trying to change the government, it often takes a three-fifths
>majority vote (:-) of the engineers to change the fiats of management.  In a
>moderate to large size company, that can be very difficult to come by.  In 15
>years of working in a UNIX environment, I have only seen one engineer be able
>to investigate working in anything other than C/C++ (excluding SQL and 4GL
>derivatives) because he felt he could justify the capabilities of a NeXT
>machine (it didn't go anywhere, though).  Nowadays, justifying the use of any
>development environment other than C/C++ requires answers to:

>1. How expensive is it?  (C/C++ tools are readily available, so the cost is
>   almost always lower for buy-in.)
>2. How long will it take to be productive?  (Often a subjective judgement of
>   one or two engineers that don't have enough "weight" to win over the rest
>   of the development organization.)
>3. What are the "lock-ins"?  (For instance, Objective-C will most likely
>   lock-in a NeXTStep environment.)
>4. What are the "other" costs?  (Usually, heavy training.)
>5. What improvements will I see over the current environment?  (Highly
>   religious arguments that are often lost on the uninitiated.)

Yes, this is true. However to answer Robert's assertion that engineers
are free to explore other languages in another way: Those who bother
to do so are often (metaphorically) spat on for suggesting such heresies,
as C and C++ might be deficient, and there are other and better ways
to do things. Unfortunately, this makes most people feel they are not
free to rock the boat against the religious fervour surrounding C and C++.
-- 
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
