From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,33e793a459e66944 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Stanley R. Allen" Subject: Re: Choosing C++ instead of Ada Date: 1996/10/22 Message-ID: <326CF7BC.167E@hso.link.com> X-Deja-AN: 191801555 references: <01bbb6e2$6385d540$23b2fd86@jssmith.csu891.sandia.gov> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: NASA/Johnson Space Center mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01b1 (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP19) Date: 1996-10-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Richard Riehle wrote: > > I am meeting more and more DoD managers and contractors who, at the > management level, are concerned with whether Ada has the staying > power required for them to select it for important projects. While > many of them agree that Ada is probably superior to C++, that superiority > may prove to be of marginal value when weighed against the availability > of tools for C++, programmers in C++, and the myriad of other resources > for C++. > > These managers are asking whether Ada will be around for the next ten > years, and if it is, whether there will be cost-effective tools and > compilers to make Ada a good business decision. They are convinced that > C++ will not go away. Yes, it's a pitiful shame that these ideas whirl through such influential minds. DoD managers and contractors need to understand the the trend is away from C++ in the commercial realm; something that seems implied in a lot of public statements by the commercial development community these days. For example, the latest issue of Windows Tech Journal (Nov 96) has an editorial that reports the results of a private conference involving high-level representativies from big commercial vendors (Microsoft included); C++ is described as a dead issue; "it's like leaded gas, you'll still be able to get it, but it won't be the main thing"; its role will be limited to the back end of the process (the output of a RAD tool, for example). Essentially, they seem to be saying that C++ will be more of an assembly language, at least for Windows development. The editor goes on to say that he doesn't mourn the passing of C++, after all, "there's something seriously wrong with a language that spawns a sub-industry in pointer-debugging tools and object-code checkers" (not an exact quote). These sentiments seem to be echoed in almost every journal I read (especially the "letters" sections) -- programmers are fed up with C++, and generally only endure it if the code is generated for them in some way. They aren't programming "in" C++ so much as they are programming in the "applications framework". And there aren't many of these frameworks for non-GUI-based projects. No wonder there is such a mad rush to Java -- even though Java has yet to prove itself in one major application. Overnight a whole industry has grown up around this new language, and millions of dollars are being bet on its success. And I believe that at least half of the reason for its popularity is that developers have been looking for a way out of the C++ trap. (The other half would be JVM support in commercial web browsers). If Java wins the commercial development language war, which looks very possible, and the DoD decided to go with C++ because of all of the commercial support you mention, then the DoD will be the big loser because in a few years all that commercial support will disappear. > And they believe that C++, with all of its > liabilities, will continue to get better. > This is a powerful argument. Except, of course, that every time C++ gets better, it gets worse! ;) > > One senior executive at a DoD contracting site asked me to name three > Ada compiler vendors. It was easy to name three, but I realized that > the field has narrowed. Now name three software companies who provide > testing tools for Ada. What about three providers of configuration > management tools? What about other third-party tools? But you should ask them how many C++ vendors there are. I can think of three -- Microsoft, Borland, and Symantec. Now think of ten; not so easy. I know it's easier to think of ten test vendors for C++ products -- C++ programs need more tests!! So, is C++ really that popular, or is it just backed by heavy muscle? And if that backing diminishes, whence goes C++? My programmer friends over the commercial wall say that Microsoft is really more committed to Visual Basic -- all the hot new stuff is introduced there first, later migrates to C++. I'm sure Borland feels that way about Delphi -- proprietary technology will lock developers in to vendor-specific languages and tools. So, C++ will play second fiddle to VB and Delphi. And the same thing will happen to Java as well, witness Microsoft J++. Ask the DoD contracting manager if she wants the missile system developed in Visual Basic -- after all, the newest, neatest, and largest collection of tools are only available for that platform. Stanley Allen (speaking for myself) s_allen@hso.link.com -- Proposal for CORBA 3.0: The Acronym Repository