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!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!engineer.mrg.uswest.com!cherokee!da_vinci!lookout!tblanch
From: tblanch@lookout (Todd Blanchard)
Subject: Re: C++ Productivity
Message-ID: <D3Ls30.K1x@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com>
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
Sender: news@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (IT Netnews)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lookout
Organization: US WEST Information Technologies
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <1995Jan23.193745.7044@boole.com> <jim.fleming.84.00133AB6@bytes.com> <1995Jan25.201226.28856@rcmcon.com> <jim.fleming.75.0003AF13@bytes.com> <3gls1u$p2l@osfa.aber.ac.uk> <1995Feb1.184049.16332@rcmcon.com> <D3E33s.DCp@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest <3h5l59$n2i@booz.bah.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 00:01:48 GMT
Lines: 63
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:111358 comp.lang.smalltalk:20457 comp.object:26274

Gerald G. Washington (gerald@warbird.usae.bah.com) wrote:
: Todd Blanchard (tblanch@lookout) wrote:
: : Robert Martin (rmartin@rcmcon.com) wrote:

: : : 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 find it interesting how you make up a quote, 

Which quote is that?  I made nothing up.  I drew an analogy.  He claims
"It sells, it must be good."  Falaciious.

: : 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.

: I get it.  You only see one extreme or the other.  

No, I don't.  But if C++ were a power tool, OSHA would have banned it by
now.  Its an ergonomics nightmare.

: Perhaps some people
: like safety rails that also require using some thought.  

I see, you'd prefer to be protected by safety rails rated up to 5 mph
and no more.

: This latest
: fad of C++ bashing doesn't seem to be adding anything constructive
: about any language.  Every language has pitfalls.  C++ requires more
: training than most others to use properly.  Is the argument that more
: knowledge is a bad thing?

No and your blindness to the point and knee-jerk defense of C++ is
common among its rabid supporters.  Allow me to state my point again:

C++ has been shown on several huge-scale projects to not scale well.
C++ is fine for smaller things. (OpenDoc components)
C++ is not bad for medium things (shrink-wrapped apps)
C++ is OK for OS development where you have a better-class of
programmer.
C++ is a poor choice for an enterprise computing environment.  With
average quality programmers you get below-average development output and
reliability.  

I simply try to point out that the claims "Develop faster, more
maintaintable, more reusable, larger systems with C++" is not doing OO
any good.  C++ takes longer, costs more, and is much harder to get
reuse from than conventional programming.

Industry is seeing this and beginning to share experiences.  We are in
danger of overselling OO in general and may well be subject to the
backlash that befell the over-hyped (but very useful) AI.

Todd Blanchard
