Re: another way to shoot yourself in the foot?

[Terence <tbwright@cantv.net>]

SNIP:-
>Why does Gary Scott's company use almost entirely C++ if Gary Scott recommended Fortran?

I have met this situation many times.
As an example, a very large Oil Company first wrote its accounting
software n 1961 in Fortran, using integer arithemetic and separate
tracking of cents or pennies, on an IBM 1401 (after using plugboard
hardware). This included payroll.

Later, following IBM advice they took the PL/1 route after first
deviating via Cobol (and RPG and Mark4 !).

Very much later, Cobol, PL/1 and Fortran programmers became hard to
find, so the C and C++ languages were adopted after a look at Ada and
much talk with Borland. Basic was considered and actually used for
quick "stuff". Meanwhile I kept on updating the Fortran compilers and
the BMD and BMDP mathematical packages (which are/were Fortran IV
source code).

The points to consider always are:-
a) what the programming gurus" on staff think are the best options,
b) what the personnel staff say are the long-range availability of
programming candidates and prices,
c) what the universities and technical colleges have decided to teach
for problem-solving, especially to electrical, engineering and
geophysical/geology and mining students.

What a company finally decides on, can differ, even when competing in
the same fields.
And so long-term computer expert staff may know one language is far
better for the company's future, through years of exposure and use of
alternatives, yet have to bow to instructives based on economic
forces.

One solution I was not able to implement, was to take any new
programmers willing and available, and re-teach them a reasoned,
chosen and company-wide imposed language, which would have been
Fortran IV (over PL/1 by a hair) and of course going to F90 as soon an
F95 became available, one sure step behind.

I DID manage to get the concept accepted of hard-disk computer
workstations instead of terminals and maninframes well before it
became glaringly obvious as cheaper and more flexible.
Intercommunication was via minicomputers as message and file-passing
nodes and central file back-up and archiving points.