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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212635825 references: <32EB753C.678B@jmpstart.com> organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Jerry van Dijk wrote: >I keep wondering, why all this heated debat? Why try to convince each >other the the language you like best is the ideal for everything ? There's no point in that, I agree. >Isn't this whole discussion futile since programming languages are just >tools, and not every problem looks like a nail ? No, no, and no! A language is not "a tool". It is a *collection* of perhaps-related tools. If you hand me one toolbox, containing a hammer and a saw, and another toolbox, containing a screwdriver and a set of socket wrenches, and make me choose between them, it's perfectly reasonable for me to say, "Hey, I wanted a hammer and a wrench." To me, that's what this debate is about. I *really* want Ada's type safety (at compile time, in many cases) and Smalltalk's flexibility and simplicity. I want both. Don't tell me, "If you choose the hammer, you can't have the wrenches." I think it's technically feasible to have both. I think the idea that a programming language is a single tool, take it or leave it, as is, is bogus. >Smalltalk would not exactly be my first choice if I had to built a large >reliable system. Neither would Ada be my first choice for developing >a PC GUI front-end. But suppose I want to build a large reliable system with a GUI front end? >... But I have developed a banking application in which the >presentation- and application layers were written in Smalltalk, while >the functional- and interface layers were written in Ada. OK, that's an OK answer, given the current state-of-the-art, but there are serious costs to interfacing between the two. I claim that it's possible to design a programming language that supports both at the same time, without the interfacing difficulties. Interfacing between two different languages is a serious problem. The design of Ada 95 goes to a great deal of trouble to make interfacing between Ada and C (etc) as easy as possible, but it's still painful. Silly little things, like whether strings are null-terminated, or carry their bounds with them. So I don't buy the idea that you can just choose whatever language is best for each module, and then paste them together. - Bob