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: f4fd2,23202754c9ce78dd X-Google-Attributes: gidf4fd2,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-18 11:01:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail From: Simon Willcocks Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: True faiths ( was Re: The true faith ) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:44:27 +0100 Organization: Different Systems Ltd. Message-ID: <7302e4fa4a.simonwillcocks@RiscPC.enterprise.net> References: <%njZ7.279$iR.150960@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <3c36fbc5_10@news.newsgroups.com> <4idg3u40ermnp682n6igc5gudp7hajkea9@4ax.com> <76be8851.0201101909.9db0718@posting.google.com> <9jtu3u8cq92b05j47uat3412tok6hqu1ki@4ax.com> <3C3F8689.377A9F0F@brising.com> <3219936759616091@naggum.net> <3C483CE7.D61D1BF@removeme.gst.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1011380422 07 30869 5-yfTFiXS+A-AK 020118 19:00:22 X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com X-Sender: 520099018627-0001@t-dialin.net User-Agent: Messenger-Pro/2.50a (MsgServe/1.50) (RISC-OS/4.02F) NewsHound/1.42 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:24663 comp.lang.ada:19069 comp.lang.eiffel:5454 comp.lang.smalltalk:18143 Date: 2002-01-18T19:44:27+01:00 List-Id: In message <3C483CE7.D61D1BF@removeme.gst.com> Bob Bane wrote: > I was particularly impressed with his last paragraph in the second > article. For some reason, he doesn't conclude that there's something > wrong with C++. Can't imagine why... > > ---------BEGIN-QUOTE----------- > > I don't know about you, but there's something really scary to me about a > language where copying state from one object to another is this > complicated. By now, I suspect at least a dozen or two programmers have > contributed something new to this discussion. If it takes this many > programmers to write a simple assignment operator, think how complicated > writing code that actually does something meaningful must be! Despite this he's still (presumably) hiring C++ programmers! In message Kevin McFarlane wrote: > Yes. This is true. BTW, have you read this? It supports your case. > > "Debunking the Myth of a Desperate Software Labor Shortage" > http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html One of the claims in this document is > [firms could] hire a generic programmer and let him/her learn the specific > skills on the job, which any competent programmer can do within weeks. > Refusing to hire a C-language programmer to write Java code is like a Ford > dealer refusing to hire mechanics who have only Chevy experience, [...] Ordinarily, I would agree, but looking at the assignment operator example I have had second thoughts. I read the code and saw quickly why each line was there and why it was necessary, but I'm sure I wouldn't have come up with all of it myself! There is a simple solution, though; the coding standards in the last project I worked on required that each class should have an assignment operator and a copy constructor defined, but made private and with no implementation. I think I'll try to stick to languages with garbage collection. Regards, Simon Willcocks