Re: C/C++ does not exist!

[jls@summit.novell.com (Schilling J.)]

In article <D31MFK.Ao0@research.att.com> bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) writes:
>
>jls@summit.novell.com (Schilling J.) 
>
> > because there's a real question as to how much C++ is actually being
> > used out there.
>
>Really?
>
>Of course, keeping your eyes closed is a good way to be sure
>not to see anything see anything you don't want to see.
>
>	- Bjarne

Whoa!  My eyes are open.  I work on C++ compilers and libraries, I'd *like*
to see them get used by lots and lots of people.  I've also worked on Ada 
compilers, I'd like to see them get used too.  Anything wrong with that?

Yes, there is a real question about how much C++, like any language, is
being used, and for what.   It certainly gets used a lot more than Ada, 
there's no question about that.  What I'm interested in is the share of 
this (to me bogus) "C/C++" language that C++ has.  For instance, when you 
quote Borland C++ sales figures in D&E, that's for a combination product 
that many people may (or may not!) use only as a C compiler.  It's hard
to measure.  Similarly, the Novell UnixWare SDK now includes both C and C++ 
as standard items, so we have no direct way of measuring who's using what.

I'm not bringing this up in the context of the "C++ backlash", if such
a thing exists, but rather in the context of real resource allocation
issues:  for instance, what level of resources should Novell allocate
to the UnixWare C++ compiler and libraries, relative to other non-C++-
specific development environment features?  All I'm saying is that the
lumping together of C and C++ that happens in products and in peoples'
discussions of C++ makes assessing the C++ language share a more 
difficult task than for other languages.

-- 
Jonathan Schilling
Novell, UNIX Systems Group
jls@summit.novell.com