Re: OO, C++, and something much better!

[bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup)]

From: Sazonov Cyril <cyril@geol.spb.su> writes:

 >  > I'm absollutely agree with Stanley Allen ! Just to say more: C++ doesn't
 >  > suggest _ANY_ new ideas or tools in comparison with Ada !
 > 
 >  > <<quote from John Skaller not containing the phrases 'new word' or
 >  > 'revolutionary technology' deleted - bs>>
 > 
 > At all talks of 'new word', 'revolutionary technology' etc in the context of
 > OOP and C++ especially seems to be strange for the ones who know  Ada since,
 > for example, 1989. All the ideas of the OOP had been implemented in Ada, even
 > though they seamed to classic in the time of the language design. Triumphant
 > march of the OOP and C++ is caused by some kind of lazyness and illiteracy.
 > The ones who find that technology to be new simply aren't familiar with the
 > Algol-family languages history.

As far as I know, this discussion started with some assertions about the
degree to which C++ was innovative. Naturally, some people couldn't resist
the temptation to start a minor flamewar in favor of their favorite languages.
However, let us try to stick to facts. Nothing good will come of calling
someone "lazy and illiterate." Ignorance of the Algol family of Languages
is not common among the part of the C and C++ community that I am most
acqainted with (including John Skaller) - essentially everyone is multi-lingual.

Early versions of C++ were - under the name C with Classes - in use from
1980, and C++ much as we know it was in commercial use from late 1985.

For my needs, Ada83 was too restrictive and too expensive. In particular,
C++ provided virtual functions which Ada83 lacked - and the Ada95 designers
agreed with me in the sense that they added the equivalent. I understand the
restraint of the Ada83 designers, but that didn't help me at the time.
Object-oriented programming - as most commonly defined - needs the support
of virtual functions (unless you are willing to simulate them using pointers
to functions - which would be hard in Ada83).

And 'no' I do not claim that virtual functions originated in C++. I borrowed
that concept - with proper thanks and acknowledgements - from Simula.
In my opinion, Simula is a good candidate for the title of "the most
innovative language ever."

Ada83 provided generics, and at the time I acknowledged that C++ suffered
from the lack of an equivalent. However, simple grafting of features from
one language onto another doesn't work too well. I think that templates
serve C++ better than a simple transplant of Ada generics would have.

For a view of 1985 vintage C++ see my "What is Object-Oriented Programming?"
paper, or better yet see "The Design and Evolution of C++" (Addison-Wesley)
for a more detailed view of C++ from a current perspective.

	- Bjarne

Bjarne Stroustrup, AT&T Research, http://www.research.att.com/~bs/homepage.html