C+++, yes three pluses

C+++, yes three pluses

[SAHARBAUGH]

As I watch the discussions titled Ichibiah, flames etc. it occurs to
me that you are defining the next computer language to emerge.  It would
have the market acceptance of C++ and the software engineering features
of Ada.  For instance, John Goodsen writes:

As the C++ market doubles each year, I don't think there is much
debate who the "winner" will likely be.  C++ has already layed out
most of commercial market battle field for OO languages in the next 10
years.  Wouldn't it be nice to say that "Ada has everything C++ has
*PLUS* tasking, hierarchical libraries, etc..."?  Ada 9X has got to
directly match the class concept of C++ or it will lose too many
potential users to a language which supports it.

When people read an OOD book and it talks about "classes",
"inheritance" and "polymorphism", they will naturally look for these
constructs in a language.  The majority of these people will bypass
Ada 9X when they see that it doesn't have direct support for "classes"
(unless this advice is heeded and the tagged types are changed to
classes :-)

---
It seems to me that new computer language features emerge first
as pre-processors to existing languages.  Recall RATFOR before
structured FORTRAN and now Classic-Ada before Ada 9X.  If indeed
Ada 9X has all of the OO features of C++ plus more good things BUT
is not packaged in a way to appeal to the mass market then it seems
to me that re-oackaging Ada 9X is the thing to do.  i.e. write a 9X
pre-processor, call it C+++, and use the keywords, strucures etc. that the mass market wants.  Hide the 9X compiler inside where noone sees it.
Build a visual programming front-end too for the click and drag
people who think an object is something you "see".

I am not a tool-builder but it seems to me that the folks in
California should be able to build such a 9X pre-processor
in one or two weeks, once the user interface was defined.

The social impact might be to draw together the now-feuding
C++ crowd and the Ada crowd for the mutual benefit of the
commercial and Government communities.

p.s., don't call it C+++ because each time you type that name the Hayes compatible modem answers "OK".

sam harbaugh  SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU
---

Re: C+++, yes three pluses

[Benjamin Ketcham]

Actually, that should be (C++)++.  Or maybe C+=2.

But then, I always thought the original one should
be ++C.

--ben

Re: C+++, yes three pluses

[John English]

bketcham@stein2.u.washington.edu (Benjamin Ketcham) writes:
: 
: Actually, that should be (C++)++.  Or maybe C+=2.
: 
: But then, I always thought the original one should
: be ++C.

Well, actually C++ is an accurate name -- it means that every time you
use the language, a new feature gets added... :-)

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John English			| Fudd's first law of opposition:
Dept. of Computing		|    If you push something hard enough, it
University of Brighton		|    *will* fall over.
E-mail: je@unix.brighton.ac.uk	| Testlicle's deviant to Fudd's law:
Fax:    0273 642405		|    What goes in, must come out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: C+++, yes three pluses

[MILLS,JOHN M.]

In article <1993Mar16.113344.5594@unix.brighton.ac.uk> je@unix.brighton.ac.uk (John English) writes:
 >bketcham@stein2.u.washington.edu (Benjamin Ketcham) writes:
 >: But then, I always thought the original one should
 >: be ++C.
 >Well, actually C++ is an accurate name -- it means that every time you
 >use the language, a new feature gets added... :-)

Are thinking of Forth?

Lippman asks the question* in his _C++_Primer_.  I have heard the preferred
answer is:
  "Increment C, then use the old value."

* Actually his formulation is: "Why was C++ not called ++C?"

'Old friends are best'  -- my father, on retold jokes.

Regards --jmm--

-- 
John M. Mills, SRE; Georgia Tech/GTRI/TSDL, Atlanta, GA 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!jm59
Internet: john.m.mills@gtri.gatech.edu
EBENE Chocolat Noir 72% de Cacao - WEISS - 42000 St.Etienne - very fine

Re: C+++, yes three pluses

[John Goodsen]

>It seems to me that new computer language features emerge first
>as pre-processors to existing languages.  Recall RATFOR before
>structured FORTRAN and now Classic-Ada before Ada 9X.  If indeed
>Ada 9X has all of the OO features of C++ plus more good things BUT
>is not packaged in a way to appeal to the mass market then it seems
>to me that re-oackaging Ada 9X is the thing to do.  i.e. write a 9X
>pre-processor, call it C+++, and use the keywords, strucures etc. that the mass market wants.  Hide the 9X compiler inside where noone sees it.
>Build a visual programming front-end too for the click and drag
>people who think an object is something you "see".
>
>I am not a tool-builder but it seems to me that the folks in
>California should be able to build such a 9X pre-processor
>in one or two weeks, once the user interface was defined.
>

Excellent idea, Sam, except that when
you create "pre-processor" code, you usually tend break all
of the other tools in your development environment that have no
idea about this preprocessor.  Hence, if it's an important enough
*feature* (and I believe that using CLASS syntax in Ada 9X is),
then you've really got to make it a part of the core language.

We agree conceptually that you need to repackage Ada 9X to hit
the OOP market, but a preprocessor, "add-on" solution isn't 
going to cut it from a language marketing perspective.




-- 
John Goodsen
Software Process & Environments
EVB Software Engineering
jgg@evb.com