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: 103376,dff4194107a3f277 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-31 10:42:03 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!allegra!alice!bs From: bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup <9758-26353> 0112760) Subject: Re: C/C++ does not exist! Message-ID: Organization: Info. Sci. Div., AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ References: <3g8s8eINNclv@marble.summit.novell.com> <3glml0INN4sn@marble.summit.novell.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 18:42:03 GMT Date: 1995-01-31T18:42:03+00:00 List-Id: jls@summit.novell.com (Schilling J.) writes: > 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. When I talk to people, most who claims to have used C++ on real projects define classes and define virtual functions. People who use the various graphics systems and foundation libraries of course use non-C parts of C++ extensively, but indirectly. I have heard someone whose opinions I respect and who have access to Borland support records claim that ``about 60% of C++ use directly involves class definition and/or inheritance'' (i.e. not just the use of library classes). My own observations from C++ projects within AT&T and elsewhere indicates a much higher percentage of ``adventurous'' C++ use, but I don't make the mistake of assuming that my sample is typical. There is certainly a LOT of C++ as C use out there, but that is partly because any significant fraction of a large number is itself a large number. Another reason, is that many are working their way up the learning curve so that early code will be very C-like. My experience, however, is that people do get to use C++ features and techniques well beyond the C level - as opposed to getting permanently stuck at the C-level as is often (and sometimes wistfully) conjectured. > 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. Agreed, and sorry for mistaking you for a flamer. My experience is that if you support C++ specific programming styles, they will be used, and often used well. If you support C styles only, you will minimize C++ specific techiques (and your productivity and maintainability :-). The fact that C++ often gives significant benefits even with poor tool support shouldn't deter people from producing better tool. - Bjarne