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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, LOTS_OF_MONEY,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f849b,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public From: universe@radix.net (Ell) Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/17 Message-ID: <36a1dd68.3226429@news1.radix.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 433623470 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <77ledn$eu7$1@remarQ.com> <77pnqc$cgi$1@newnews.global.net.uk> <8p64spq5lo5.fsf@Eng.Sun.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Universe Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: universe@radix.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer Date: 1999-01-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mike Coffin wrote: #Matthew Heaney writes: #> This is throwing the baby out with the bath-water. Ada95 and C++ are #> both static languages, just like C. It is no more difficult to #> statically determine storage requirements using those higher-level #> languages than it is for C. #> #> In this day and age, there is very little reason to continue using C. # # Scene: the water cooler in a good sized company. # Dramatis personae: manager and programmer. # # The curtain rises... # # manager: You should use C++ or Ada. They're higher level than C. # # programmer: But I hate them. # # manager: But they're higher level! # # programmer: Yeah, right. When it first appeared, Ada was the # laughingstock of programmers everywhere for its insane # complexity and C++ has managed to outdo it. # # manager: But you'll be more productive! Your types will be checked! # Your templates will be expanded! # # programmer: Then let me use Eiffel, or ML, or Scheme, or Haskell, or, # or... Those are even higher level. I'll be even more productive. # # manager: But everyone knows that the language doesn't matter! # Bad programmers can write bad code in any language! It's the # quality of the engineer, not the language, that determines # the quality of the code. Seeming flaw in dialog: manager should still argue that language makes a difference here, maybe not the whole difference, but language choice(s) is still a factor that makes a difference in the whole equation. Given the overall project resources and goals, perhaps the manager might say Eiffel, or ML, or Scheme, or Haskell are too high level or there is not enough tool or personnel support associated with them. # programmer: So let me use C. # # manager: But, but, but, but ... it's too low level! Try C++ or # Ada! You'll like it! As above one needs to balance all project needs. It is possible to be at either too high or low a level. Because one argues against going too far in one direction does not mean that we are justified in going too in the other direction. # programmer: I used them for years. I hate them. I got into this # business because I like elegance, not baling wire and duct # tape. If I had wanted to roll around in the muck I'd have # been a pig farmer. Ada gives me a headache; C++ gives me a # headache *AND* ulcers. # # manager: Well, I'm making an executive decision. Use C++. I know # you don't like it now, but you'll get over it. # # programmer: Yup, I will. I quit. There: I'm over it. # # Happy ending: # # The project was abandoned after running 2 years late and # ballooning from 3 programmers to 20. The code never did # anything useful, but the types were all checked and the # templates were all expanded. The manager was promoted. # # The programmer is now writing Java for an internet startup # and has stock options worth $3.6 million. He has an # occasional mild headache but no ulcers. Glad the programmer found a happy ending. Elliott # #-mike # #Obviously, not speaking for Sun Microsystems. -- The Craftite conspiracy is: 1) holding life terms as c.o.m. moderators 2) oligarchic selection of new moderators 3) not banning "one ups-manship" on c.o.m. 4) moderator comments in c.o.m. :=***=: Objective * Holistic * Pre-code Modelling :=***=: Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering Study Craftite vs.full blown OO: http://www.access.digex.net/~ell Copyright 1999 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied w/out permission only in the comp., phil., & sci. usenet and bitnet groups.