Re: Comments on Ada vs. C++ panel

[oucsboss!att-out!cbnewsl!willett@sun.com (david.c.willett)]

>From article <1993Feb2.180552.5536@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, by mccall@mksol.dseg.ti
.com (fred j mccall 575-3539):
Original C++ discussion deleted.....

> explain to me why a language restriction is better than, say, an
> organizational policy restriction.  Personally, I would consider a
> language that allows me to do things in special cases to be better
> than one which does not, even if the 'things' are not necessarily a
> good idea in the usual case.
> 
> [Let's try this one in Email -- I'm *NOT* interested in starting some
> kind of language flamewar.  I'm simply honestly curious about the idea
> that it is somehow 'better' for a language to restrict the developer
> rather than for the developer to restrict himself or herself to good
> practice while having the ability to step outside that for unusual
> cases.]  
> 
> -- 
> "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Fred,
	I'll take on your question, don't worry no language flamewar from here.
To me the question hinges on whether a language should "assist" the developer
or not.  It is much the same question as GUI vs. command interpreter interfaces
or automatic vs. manual transmissions.

	Generally, I'd prefer not to have the assistance, so I eschew GUI
interfaces, spreadsheets, and automatic transmissions.  However, there are
situations where I find such things useful.  If I'm doing a lot of 
"application hopping" being able to run 3..5 things in different windows
without having to type complicated command scripts is nice.  Spreadsheets
have their purpose in accounting work, but I generally prefer an "old 
fashioned" ledger form.  Automatics are better for city driving, which is
the kind I'm doing most of the time now.

	How does all this relate to languages?  What is "better" depends
on the kind of work you do.  If I have a one-to-four person-month project
which is isolated or well insulated from the rest of the world, I don't 
care which language is used.  Maintenance might become an issue but 
probably not for a while.

	At the other extreme is the 24-48 person-month effort which 
is central to a sophisticated system of software.  Here is where I'd 
want to make very sure that the techniques used were consistent and 
rigorous.  You suggest that ogranizational standards (may I infer
software management? ) could enforce such techniques so the language
doesn't have to.  I submit that compilers are better "enforcers" than
people.  They are consistent.  They are equitable.  They do not crack
under cost or schedule pressures.  The bottom line is that they are
generally better at the job.


-- 
Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies
attmail!dwillett      (AT&T FSAT)
If you think it's so !#$%^& easy, You try it!