Re: ada and robots

Re: ada and robots

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970618125216.11737B-100000@shellx.best.com> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:

> PS: I bought that book when it came out, in 1991. I was trying to use it 
> with SGI's version of CFront 3.0. Templates, nested classes (which are not 
> as useful as Java's inner classes) and exceptions were unusable then, and 
> still so several years thereafter. 

It is rather amazing, isn't it.  BTW, I've completely given up on C++.
I think C still has its uses, but C++?  I don't think so.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
OMI, Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: ada and robots

[Brian Rogoff]

On 19 Jun 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote:
> > PS: I bought that book when it came out, in 1991. I was trying to use it 
> > with SGI's version of CFront 3.0. Templates, nested classes (which are not 
> > as useful as Java's inner classes) and exceptions were unusable then, and 
> > still so several years thereafter. 
> 
> It is rather amazing, isn't it.  BTW, I've completely given up on C++.
> I think C still has its uses, but C++?  I don't think so.

I do.

C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages* which will be with us for 
a long time.  Certainly if I had my druthers, there would be little new C++
written and lots of new Ada (which I think is your point), but even in that 
better world there would be C++ written in the maintenance of existing
code. There is also a fairly large pool of C++ programmers out there, and a 
large number of projects cranking out code. So there probably is a use for 
C++ qua C++, even if we could make technical arguments that Ada can do the 
job "better".  

IMO, its really a question of degree only. All computer languages
fundamentally suck. I just happen to find Ada's flaws far more palatable 
for those programming tasks for which C, C++, and Fortran are often used.   

-- Brian

Re: ada and robots

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970619163029.5827A-100000@shellx.best.com> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:

> > It is rather amazing, isn't it.  BTW, I've completely given up on C++.
> > I think C still has its uses, but C++?  I don't think so.
> 
> I do.
> 
> C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages* which will be with us for 
> a long time.

Oh, it is _used_ all over the place (well, more or less - it's often
difficult to glean whether it is just being used as a ANSI C sort of
thing.)  I was talking about "uses" as in "the best thing to use here
is C++".  This latter does not seem to have good rationale no matter
what the situation: if it is simply C stuff - use C.  Numerical stuff
- use Fortran.  If it is something needing flexible higher level
capabilities, sophistication and lower level efficiencies - use Ada
(or Eiffel).  Implemenations and availability are every bit as viable
as those for C++.  Something even higher level - use Lisp or ST or
some such.


> large number of projects cranking out code. So there probably is a
> use for C++ qua C++, even if we could make technical arguments that
> Ada can do the job "better".

I don't mean just "technically".


> IMO, its really a question of degree only. All computer languages
> fundamentally suck.

Right.  This I completely agree with.  However, a large enough
quantitative gap gives a qualitative difference.


> I just happen to find Ada's flaws far more palatable for those
> programming tasks for which C, C++, and Fortran are often used.

I hear ya.  But, for me, the degree to which C++ sucks puts it in a
class of its own.


/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
OMI, Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: ada and robots

[John G. Volan]

Brian Rogoff wrote:
> 
> On 19 Jun 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote:
> > BTW, I've completely given up on C++.
> > I think C still has its uses, but C++?  I don't think so.
> 
> I do.
> 
> C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages*
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If this is really the case, then this is a serious problem with C++. 
The lack of a commonly-agreed upon standard that completely defines the
semantics of C++ as a _single_ language, with all available compilers
reliably implementing all of its features in comparable and compatible
ways, must be viewed as a major strike against it. (To be fair, such a
standard _is_ in the works, but the irony is that historians may
actually take the date of the final ISO vote of approval for the C++
standard as the official date of C++'s death as a fad, and its
replacement by the next fad, Java.) :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature 
  (Name       => "John G. Volan",
   Employer   => "Texas Instruments Advanced C3I Systems, San Jose, CA",
   Work_Email => "jvolan@ti.com",
   Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com",
   Slogan     => "Ada95: World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL",
   Disclaimer => "My employer never defined these opinions, so using" & 
                 "them would be totally erroneous ... or is that"     &
                 "just nondeterministic behavior now? :-) ");
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C++ usage (was Re: ada and robots)

[Brian Rogoff]

On 20 Jun 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote:
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970619163029.5827A-100000@shellx.best.com> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:
> > > It is rather amazing, isn't it.  BTW, I've completely given up on C++.
> > > I think C still has its uses, but C++?  I don't think so.
> > 
> > I do.
> > 
> > C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages* which will be with us for 
> > a long time.
> 
> Oh, it is _used_ all over the place (well, more or less - it's often
> difficult to glean whether it is just being used as a ANSI C sort of
> thing.)  I was talking about "uses" as in "the best thing to use here
> is C++".  This latter does not seem to have good rationale no matter
> what the situation: if it is simply C stuff - use C.  Numerical stuff
> - use Fortran.  If it is something needing flexible higher level
> capabilities, sophistication and lower level efficiencies - use Ada
> (or Eiffel).  Implemenations and availability are every bit as viable
> as those for C++.  Something even higher level - use Lisp or ST or
> some such.

My experience (which may not match yours) is that C++ is used in many 
organizations as an OO programming language, but that a subset of the 
"language" is used which is far smaller than draft ANSI/ISO C++, or 
even Lippman '91 or the "The C++ Programming Language, 2nd ed.". To be 
specific, I don't see templates, exceptions, namespaces, or RTTI being 
used much, but classes (and virtual members) and overloading are. Multiple 
inheritance is not used as much as in other languages (I've seen a
bunch of CLOS code and MI is used a lot). 
 
> > large number of projects cranking out code. So there probably is a
> > use for C++ qua C++, even if we could make technical arguments that
> > Ada can do the job "better".
> 
> I don't mean just "technically".

I don't understand what you mean here.

> > IMO, its really a question of degree only. All computer languages
> > fundamentally suck.
> 
> Right.  This I completely agree with.  However, a large enough
> quantitative gap gives a qualitative difference.

Sure. If I had my way, I'd never write another line of C++. I suppose 
Eiffel and OCAML programmers might say the same thing about Ada ;-)

> > I just happen to find Ada's flaws far more palatable for those
> > programming tasks for which C, C++, and Fortran are often used.
> 
> I hear ya.  But, for me, the degree to which C++ sucks puts it in a
> class of its own.

I have to say I mostly agree, though IMHO Perl comes close.

-- Brian

Re: ada and robots

[Robert Dewar]

Brian said

<<C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages* which will be with us for
a long time.  Certainly if I had my druthers, there would be little new C++
<<



I don't understand the "family of languages" reference here.

Re: ada and robots

[Brian Rogoff]

On 23 Jun 1997, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Brian said
> 
> <<C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages* which will be with us for
> a long time.  Certainly if I had my druthers, there would be little new C++
> <<
> 
> I don't understand the "family of languages" reference here.

Don't read too much into it. It is just a quip about the elusive nature 
of the meaning of "C++", inspired by years of working with it. I found 
that most C++ code I saw (late 80s and early 90s) really would have been 
best described as VC++, GNU C++, Zortech C++, etc, and these were all 
changing with each release (but not getting closer to each other). 

Yeah, you could argue that the same is true of Ada to some degree, but 
(as Jon pointed out) the quantitative difference is very great. Many 
articles by C++ cognoscenti in that time frame cautioned against the use 
of templates and exceptions in portable code, for example. 

-- Brian

Re: C++ Family of Languages [was :ada and robots]

[Alan Brain]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Brian said
> 
> <<C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages* which will be with us for
> a long time.  Certainly if I had my druthers, there would be little new C++
> <<
> 
> I don't understand the "family of languages" reference here.

Anyone who's tried porting large amounts of code in C++ will know what's
meant.

Case in point: I'm currently porting a large quantity of CodeWarrior C++
to VisualC++ 5.0. One example:

for (int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i ++)
{
 //some statements
}
for (int i = 0 ; i < 20 ; i ++)
{
 //some more statements
}

On CodeWarrior, fine. But Visual C++ 5 barfs at the re-definition of the
(local) loop variable i. Yes, CodeWarrior (and I believe the draft ANSI
standard) has i being local within the loop, whereas VC++5 has strictly
only things within {} being local. OTOH for CodeWarrior 10(?) I need to

#include <bool.h>

Whereas VC++5 (and the ANSI draft) caters for type BOOLEAN, so barfs if
you include it. For strings, of course, I need to

#include <string>

for both, but also, for CWarrior I can then use

string ThisString;

whereas in VC++5 I need to

typedef std::basic_string<char> string  

or similar before I can declare a variable of type string. This isn't
too bad: it's just an instantiation of a generic string for characters.
Too bad use of templates in C++ is often considered Highly Advanced. 

These are not "old" compilers. They are at least industry standard, and
are probably ahead of the average. Every day, I miss Ada-83 more and
more and more... Except for Thursdays, when I teach Ada at ADFA.

I took the liberty of X-posting to comp.lang.c++ so you might get a few
more remarks on this thread.

-- 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|      xxxxx       Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |  xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
100026.2014 compuserve o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo     oo  
                    By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
See http://www.z-world.com/graphics/z/master/8856.gif for picture

Re: ada and robots

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

"John G. Volan" <johnvolan@sprintmail.com> writes:
>Brian Rogoff wrote:
>> C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages*

>If this is really the case, then this is a serious problem with C++. 

It is really the case.  For example, the <string> header, providing
C++'s equivalent of Ada.Strings.Unbounded (more or less), has been
in the draft standard since at least April 1995.  Of the two compilers
I have here, one supports it and one doesn't.  When I complained on
the net about this, the response from some C++ experts was "don't be
a whining idiot, use char*".  Of course, comparisons on 'char*' and
comparisons on 'string' do very different things...

In fairness to the compiler writers, C++ is an extremely complex language.
It's a pity neither of the compilers available to me supports 'namespace'
yet (which has also been in the draft standard since April 1995 at least),
but I'd much rather they got templates exactly right first.

-- 
Four policemen playing jazz on an up escalator in the railway station.
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.

Re: C++ Family of Languages [was :ada and robots]

[Robert Dewar]

Alan said

<<Anyone who's tried porting large amounts of code in C++ will know what's
meant.
>>

OK, so you meant to say family of dialects, rather than family of languages,
and to be fair, this is probably a transitional phenomenon that will 
gradually disappear when the C++ standard appears.
\x1adp