Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!satisfied.elf.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!rcm!rmartin
From: rmartin@rcmcon.com (Robert Martin)
Subject: Re: C++ Productivity
References: <1995Jan23.193745.7044@boole.com> <jim.fleming.84.00133AB6@bytes.com> <1995Jan25.201226.28856@rcmcon.com> <jim.fleming.75.0003AF13@bytes.com> <3gls1u$p2l@osfa.aber.ac.uk> <1995Feb1.184049.16332@rcmcon.com> <D3E33s.DCp@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com> <1995Feb3.172403.2977@rcmcon.com> <D3FuGq.Kwv@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
Organization: R. C. M. Consulting Inc. 708-918-1004
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 17:32:47 GMT
Message-ID: <1995Feb6.173247.17066@rcmcon.com>
Lines: 93
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:111212 comp.lang.smalltalk:20420 comp.object:26232

tblanch@lookout (Todd Blanchard) writes:

>Robert Martin (rmartin@rcmcon.com) wrote:
>: tblanch@lookout (Todd Blanchard) writes:

>: >Here, perhaps is the point.  The C++ language is entirely too large and
>: >complex.  

>: Certainly it is large and complex.  But not "too large" nor "too
>: complex".  If it were, then it would not be selling as well as it is.
>: You can claim that the purchasers don't really know what they are
>: buying, but that is a pretty weak argument.

>I could argue that if Windows wasn't a technically elegant architecture
>then no-one would buy it either.  Technical excellence has never driven
>the market.  Your claim "It sells, therefore it must be wonderful" is
>clearly false.  In the software market, worse is better frequently
>prevails.

I didn't say "wonderful".  I also didn't say "Technically Elegant".  I
said: "not too large and not too complex."  To extend the statement to
Windows:  "Windows is not too large and not too complex for lots of
people to be purchasing and using it."  I don't have to like Windows,
but I must admit that it is a force to be contended with, and that
people are doing lots and lots of very good work in it.  Could it be
better?   Of course, what couldn't?  Do I think we should all stop
using it and replace it with something better?  No.  I think we should
use what we have until something better evolves and replaces it by
natural market forces.

>: >Now I don't know about you, but the average person I meet is simply not
>: >that bright.  And it takes a *very* bright person to become expert at
>: >using C++.  

>: It takes a very bright person to design software.  Anybody that can
>: create a credible software design will find C++ trivial in comparison.

>This is simplyu bogus.  Your average DP cobol programmer is not as
>bright as you think.  Again, I think you run with a brighter  crowd than
>I typically encounter.  You give the programmers too much credit. 

Whoah.  I think much of the business world has a stilted view of
programmers.  Lots of these people are very bright and don't know it
because they work for an organization that tells them they aren't.
It takes a pretty bright person to master the syntax of COBOL and
actually make it do something...let alone make it do somthing
according to a spec.  COBOL is a large complex language that requires
a lot of work and insight to understand.

>If your thinking is correct, then why do electricians use insulated
>wire.

Because they aren't fools.  Only a fools says:  "Real electricians
don't use insulated wire."

>Certainly a competent electrician can properly run bare wires if he
>knows what he is doing (this used to be the way it was done BTW).  

And only a fool will contend that he always knows what he is doing.  

You seem to be saying that insulated wire was created to protect the
poor idiot electricians who would otherwise be dying like flies on the
job.  Some superior intelligence must look out for them and save them
from their own incompetence.  

By association, you are saying the same about the "average DP cobol
programmer".  That he must be saved from himself by giving him a
simple language that he can't screw up.  But COBOL isn't simple, and
it is easy to screw up with it.  So your electricians are still using
bare wires.

>You suffer from UNIX thinking I think.  Screw safety rails, I'll just
>drive a road-huggin Ferrari and since I know what I'm doing, I'll be
>fine.  Right.

No. First, not all people who use UNIX are hackers.  The stereotype
you are creating is very unfair.  Certainly there are hackers that
have the attitude that you are talking about.  But these hackers are
found everywhere, not just in UNIX environments.  Secondly, most
people that I know who use UNIX as their platform are very safety
conscious.  And they use UNIX because it works, and provides them a
very safe environment.  

Remember, C++ was adopted by UNIX users first, and C++ has lots more
safety rails than C has.  Those safety rails are one of the reasons
that C++ has become so successful.


-- 
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++
