Re: OO, C++, and something much better!

["Bob Jarvis" <nospam@thankyou.net>]

Fergus Henderson <fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote in article <5c4iel$3k5@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>...
> Alan Lovejoy <alovejoy@concentric.net> writes:
> 
> >David Hanley wrote:
> >> 
> >> Alan Lovejoy wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Smalltalk offers many times faster development times-
> >> 
> >>         Than what?  And what is your proof of this?
> >
> >Than COBOL, C, C++, Java.
> [...]
> >Independent studies that have been done.  See, for example, the following:
> >
> >	<http://www.spr.com/library/langtbl.htm>.
> 
> The quoted URL contains a table listing languages and their
> corresponding "language level".  Unfortunately the data in the table is
> certainly not reliable or reproducible, and indeed perhaps not even
> meaningful.  The explanatory text describes how some of the data was obtained:
> 
>  |    Research was done by reading descriptions and genealogies of languages
>  |    and making an educated guess as to their levels.
> 
> Our only consolation is that at least the author admits that
> "... the margin of error ... can be quite high.".
> 
> Some of the data is patently ridiculous, and indeed the whole idea that
> one can measure "language level" on a single scale and hope to get
> meaningful results is highly suspect.
> 
> By the way, if you believe that table, then you should quickly switch
> from Smalltalk to MATHCAD, since that will supposedly increase your
> productivity by a factor of four.

I really love this link.  It admits that its results are full of holes, errors, and
inaccuracies, then presents the data as if they actually have value anyways.
<snort!>  They even admit that they haven't actually looked at some (many?)
of the languages they're "evaluating".  To quote

	"Research was done by reading descriptions and genealogies of
	languages and making an educated guess as to their levels. KL,
	CLOS, TWAICE, and FASBOL are examples of languages that
	were assigned tentative levels merely from descriptions of the language,
	rather than from actual counts. 

	For spreadsheets the ordinary concepts of a language do not apply. In this
	case, formulas, labels, and constants were considered to be statements."

Still, it's useful - as long as what they present happens to agree with your
prejudices and foregone conclusions.  For example:

	1.  Prejudice: COBOL is *bad*!
	2.  Prejudice: C++ is *good*!
	3.  Datum: COBOL language level = 3
	4.  Datum: C++ language level = 6
	5.  Conclusion: C++ is twice as good as COBOL.  Q.E.D.

Or does this mean that C++ is only half as bad as COBOL?  Or...twice as bad??  :-)
Now, taking it one step further...

	1.  Prejudice: I like Smalltalk
	2.  Prejudice: I don't like LOTUS 123
	3.  Datum: Smalltalk language level = 15
	4.  Datum: Lotus macros language level = 3
	5.  Conclusion: I'm right, as always.

The problem here is that LOTUS 123 for DOS is listed as having a language level of 50!
So I guess this means that LOTUS 123 is more than 3 times "better" than Smalltalk,
and more than six times better than C++!?!  Conclusion: trash the objects, folks, and
just use spreadsheets for everything!

I think that one of the problems with this "research" is that it attempts to compare fettucini to
Ferrari's.  They have special-purpose languages lumped in with general purpose languages
and packages, ad nauseum.  It's like asking the question, "Which is better - Peachtree
Accounting or C++?"  Context is important when answering such a question.  If you're trying
to do the books for a small company I'd tend to pick the accounting package.  On the other
hand, if you're trying to simulate the manufacturing processes at that same company I'd
think that C++ would be a better tool (although less than half as good/twice as bad as
Smalltalk :-).

However, as I said before, if the data shown can prove the point you want proved, it's a
great way to provide yourself with some much-needed smoke and mirrors.  And remember:

	There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Q.E.D.  :-)

-- 
Bob Jarvis
Mail addresses hacked to foil automailers!
Send replies to jarvisb@timken.com