Re: Why C++ is successful

["Pat Rogers" <progers@acm.org>]

Dave Martin wrote in message <35bebe5f.95187031@netnews.msn.com>...
>I certainly wasn't trying to attack ada and I hope it didn't come off
>that way.  I was just relating the experiences that I had.  Its true
>that many people use Ada and are quite happy to do so; and Ada-95 has
>added a lot to the language in an O-O context.

I think it is laudable that you have said the above; your earlier post did
indeed come off (to me, anyway) as spreading uninformed and out-of-date
hearsay (not heresy :).

>We are surrounded by many DOD installations around here, and Ada usage
>was mandated by the DOD until recently.  Many of the people I know
>were upset because they were told "you will use Ada" and many
>obviously biased studies were bandied about (the kind where it was
>obvious that the people conducting the study were told what result to
>come up with before they started the study).  I'm sure you can find
>many such "studies" on just about any topic.


Ah, "the Mandate".  Imagine you work in a building that uses approximately
450 different kinds of electrical outlet.  Now imagine moving your office
equipment from one office to another; sure would be nice if all the outlets
were compatible, because the equipment can't be used in the new office.
That's the position the DoD found itself in, when they decided maybe a
standard programming languages was a good idea.  (Approximately 450
different languages and dialects of languages were in use in embedded
systems, the domain in which DoD was spending the most money.)  Too bad they
didn't follow through with what they got, because it was very good; not for
everything, but certainly for embedded systems (warts and all).

I've been involved with Ada since 1980, and have often had to convince my
DoD customers that Ada was the way to go, but they were never sorry in the
end.  For the commercial stuff, we don't have to convince anybody because it
isn't an issue.

>I personally haven't learned Ada (83/95) yet, so I hesitate to say
>anything one way or the other about it, though I will admit to being
>influenced by my friends occasionally on the subject.  I know many
>people who hate Ada, and I know there are many others who swear by it.

I'll bet the used an inferior compiler, or had poor/no training.  Anyway, if
they took the attitude of being forced to do it, how successful could they
have been?

>I'm not sure I'll ever get around to learning Ada; Eiffel is my
>current "education" project.  I just hope that people using whatever
>language for some project are using them from an informed position and
>choice; and not for "religious" reasons.  I know someone who refused
>to move from C to C++ because of all that ickyness C++ added to C.
>sigh.  I once got him to (reluctantly) admit that prototypes were a
>good thing, but thats about as far as he'll go.  He also generally
>hates what ANSI/ISO did to C.
>
>Personally, for the last several years i've been trying to detect my
>own hidden assumptions and biases, and nullify them.  I never want to
>turn into the old dog who can't learn new tricks or becomes closed-
>minded to something simply because its different.  Unfortunately I
>haven't always been successful, but i'm trying.

That's why I'm learning Java now, and Eiffel and C++ in the past.  They all
contribute something to make one a better developer.  I need to take another
look at Fortran, because it sure isn't the Fortran IV I used in the old
days!

Since the Ada model of OO is just enough different to have some advantages,
why not learn a little about Ada? The language Rationale can be downloaded
for free.  Plus there's built-in tasking, support for deterministic
real-time programming, distribution, and a host of other things you won't
see elsewhere.

-- pat

Patrick Rogers
progers@acm.org
http://www.neosoft.com/~progers