Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Tom M. Chen]

On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 07:13:09 -0400, "ivory@tower.com" <ivory@tower.com> wrote:

:My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
:that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
:the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
:school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
:language that has real-life value on the job market.
:
:He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat
:agree.  I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of
:ads for them in the classifieds.  Note: I'm not debating whether or
:not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern.  The concern
:is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time
:well spent.
:
:So, what's the (reality based) counter argument?
:
:
:[obviously, I seldom (ever) read each of the newsgroups I posted this
:to, so please e-mail responses as well as re-post.  thanks]

Hey, M.I.T. uses Eiffel as their learning language, too.  I don't see any
disadvantages in it though.  Maybe Eiffel is a better language than C++ in that
it helps you learn better programming concepts, so you might end up becoming a
better C++ or Java programmer compared to those who learned C++ in college.  As
long as the language is object oriented, I don't see any problems because once
you learned the concepts, you can learn other languages quickly.

Tom

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Richie Bielak]

ivory@tower.com wrote:
> 
> My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
> that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
> the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
> school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
> language that has real-life value on the job market.

Hmm. When I went to college the "real-life" languages were:
JCL, BAL and COBOL. 

> 
> He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat
> agree.  I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of
> ads for them in the classifieds.  Note: I'm not debating whether or
> not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern.  The concern
> is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time
> well spent.
> 
> So, what's the (reality based) counter argument?

You don't become a programmer by learning a single language.
You need to know many. Eiffel happens to be a good one
to start with as it will teach you important principles which
are independent of the language.

Besides by the time he graduates the "real-life" language will
most likely be different than what he chose to study. Someone
decided to concentrate on C++ four years ago, today is
scrambling to learn Java.

Learn the profession of programming, not a particular language.
The course of study should include many programming languages,
as well as literature, art, science and engineering.

...richie "Eiffel Programmer"

-- 
* richieb@XYZZYnetlabs.net       - at home |  Richie Bielak        *
* richieb@XYZZYcalfp.com         - at work |                       *
*          Home page:   http://www.netlabs.net/hp/richieb          *
*        "Fight software piracy, use free software!" (me)          *
*        (Remove XYZZY  from my address before replying)           *

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Mike Stark]

ivory@tower.com wrote:
> 
> My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
> that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
> the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
> school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
> language that has real-life value on the job market.
> 
> He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat
> agree.  I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of
> ads for them in the classifieds.  Note: I'm not debating whether or
> not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern.  The concern
> is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time
> well spent.
> 
> So, what's the (reality based) counter argument?

The counter argument is that he will learn how to do software 
engineering right.  The purpose of education is to give you the
principles you need to understand a field and to keep up with how
its changing.  A graduate of a good program will be able to make
transitions between languages fairly easily, because he will
understand how to build software systems, most of which has nothing
to do with the language of choice. Languages are easy to learn compared
to design principles, large project engineering, configuration
management, testing approaches, etc.  If your friend's son likes
RIT except for the language used, he would be foolish not to go there.

I also suspect that there are single courses based on the more popular
languages that he can pick up if need be.  He can also pick up industry
practices via co-oping or summer jobs.

Mike
> 
> [obviously, I seldom (ever) read each of the newsgroups I posted this
> to, so please e-mail responses as well as re-post.  thanks]
> 
> John
> 
> --------------------------------------- ________ ---------------------
>  John E. Ivory       V: 315-724-3540        /   ___         ___  ___
>  ivory@tower.com     F: 315-724-3129       /   /  / | /| / /_   /__/
>                                           /   /__/  |/ |/ /__  / |
> -              http://www.tower.com       C O N C E P T S ,  I N C
> ---
> ----- Razor: File version control with integrated problem tracking ----

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stark                                                  
NASA/GSFC                                           
Phone: (301) 286-5048                                   Code 551
Fax:    (301) 286-0245                                   Greenbelt, MD
20771
 e-mail: michael.e.stark@gsfc.nasa.gov
"I don't give them hell.  I tell the truth and they THINK it's hell!" 
Harry S. Truman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[robinsaj]

In article <33cc35e0.49261891@news.pixi.com>, tomchen@aloha.com (Tom M. Chen) writes:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 07:13:09 -0400, "ivory@tower.com" <ivory@tower.com> wrote:
> 
> :My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
> :that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
> :the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
> :school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
> :language that has real-life value on the job market.
> :
> :He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat
> :agree.  I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of
> :ads for them in the classifieds.  Note: I'm not debating whether or
> :not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern.  The concern
> :is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time
> :well spent.
> :
> :So, what's the (reality based) counter argument?
> :
> :
> :[obviously, I seldom (ever) read each of the newsgroups I posted this
> :to, so please e-mail responses as well as re-post.  thanks]
> 
> Hey, M.I.T. uses Eiffel as their learning language, too.  I don't see any
> disadvantages in it though.  Maybe Eiffel is a better language than C++ in that
> it helps you learn better programming concepts, so you might end up becoming a
> better C++ or Java programmer compared to those who learned C++ in college.  As
> long as the language is object oriented, I don't see any problems because once
> you learned the concepts, you can learn other languages quickly.
> 
> Tom
> 

I don't think it is really important which language is used to teach students
introductory programming concepts. The point is not just to learn a programming
language but to learn how to think like a programer. I think once you learn to
do that you can learn any language easily and quickly. If he has a hard time
getting an entry level job after college because he knows different languages
than the ones that are used at the company then the person hiring probably
isn't a programmer. Technology changes so rapidly these days. It is more
important to hire individuals who understand programming concepts and can learn
new things quickly, then to hire someone that has experience with the
particular language the company is using at the time. After a while the company 
will switch to a new, "better" programming environment or language and if
the programmers they hired can't adapt quickly then they hired the wrong people.
  

Alex

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Michael Schuerig]

ivory@tower.com <ivory@tower.com> wrote:

> My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
> that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
> the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
> school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
> language that has real-life value on the job market.

When I was an undergraduate in computer science I had to learn Scheme (a
Lisp dialect) and enjoyed it very much. In later years they tought ML, a
pure functional language. Software Engineering courses were held in
Modula-2 and Eiffel.

Actually I've forgotten almost everything about Scheme and Eiffel that I
ever learned. I don't mind. Should I ever again need one of these
language I'll put a suitable book next to my keyboard and go ahead. What
I learned was something much more profound than a specific language:
concepts. I got an idea of how to approach programming problems -- the
rest is practice.

Right now I'm much more familiar with C++ and somewhat familiar with
Java and Perl. But nevertheless, I think it was a good thing to start
out with Scheme (or any other "unusual" language). It's a rare student
today who goes to college/university to study computer science without
any programming experience. But that experience might get into your way!
Here I am and I already know how to program -- what the heck are they
going to teach me? That's a serious misconception. Computer science
education is not about getting things done. It's about learning _how_ to
get things done.

Another intersting aspect of "unusual" programming languages is that
they level the playing field. It's new to each of the students, there's
not one know-all. Teamwork gets easier if you're just as "stupid" as
your neighbor.

Michael

--
Michael Schuerig                     I am the sum total of the
mailto:uzs90z@uni-bonn.de            parts I control directly.
http://www.uni-bonn.de/~uzs90z/             -Daniel C. Dennett

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Wes Groleau]

> My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
> that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
> the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
> school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
> language that has real-life value on the job market.
> 
> He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat
> agree.  I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of
> ads for them in the classifieds.  Note: I'm not debating whether or
> not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern.  The concern
> is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time
> well spent.
> 
> So, what's the (reality based) counter argument?
> 
> [obviously, I seldom (ever) read each of the newsgroups I posted this
> to, so please e-mail responses as well as re-post.  thanks]

John! Long time no see!

You just happen to have posted this query shortly after about twelve
posts in an Eiffel vs. Ada argument on comp.lang.ada (cross-posted to
other groups).  Subject lines are:
    Avoiding the second historic mistake
    Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C? 
    Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel

Also, I would imagine [censored for privacy] would try to give 
you an un-biased response.  My own response is that Eiffel is 
a good language for learning software engineering concepts, 
as is Ada.  Such concepts will benefit the learner no matter 
what good or bad language gets forced upon him after graduation.

Both are growing in the number of schools that use them.

C, on the other hand, is shrinking by _that_ metric.

If you want to learn programming as it's done "out there,"
look for C, COBOL, Visual Basic, etc.  Of course, there's no
guarantee Java or some other fad won't be in demand by the 
time you get "out there"

If you want to learn software engineering, look for Ada, 
Eiffel, etc.

Disclaimer: It is possible to teach software engineering in C,
and certainly a lot of C programmers (yourself included) generate 
quality stuff.  And as we both have seen, some Ada programmers
will generate garbage without appropriate outside pressure. 
So perhaps merely asking which language the school uses is 
not enough.

Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[ivory]

My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
language that has real-life value on the job market.

He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat
agree.  I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of
ads for them in the classifieds.  Note: I'm not debating whether or
not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern.  The concern
is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time
well spent.

So, what's the (reality based) counter argument?


[obviously, I seldom (ever) read each of the newsgroups I posted this
to, so please e-mail responses as well as re-post.  thanks]

John

--------------------------------------- ________ --------------------- 
 John E. Ivory       V: 315-724-3540        /   ___         ___  ___  
 ivory@tower.com     F: 315-724-3129       /   /  / | /| / /_   /__/  
                                          /   /__/  |/ |/ /__  / |      
-              http://www.tower.com       C O N C E P T S ,  I N C   
---              
----- Razor: File version control with integrated problem tracking ----

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Ian Nelson]

ivory@tower.com wrote:
> 
> My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
> that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
> the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
> school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
> language that has real-life value on the job market.
> 
> He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat
> agree.  I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of
> ads for them in the classifieds.  Note: I'm not debating whether or
> not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern.  The concern
> is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time
> well spent.
> 
> So, what's the (reality based) counter argument?
> 
> [obviously, I seldom (ever) read each of the newsgroups I posted this
> to, so please e-mail responses as well as re-post.  thanks]
> 
> John

The reality based counter argument is that any programmer that claims to
be a professional and is worth hiring will use what you tell him to and
pick it up fairly quickly.  Further, I have a fair amount of experience
in Standard-ML, Prolog,  and Lisp (SML programmers are in even less
demand than Eiffel programmers) from CMU, and it has not hindered my
ability for find work one bit. 

Generally, after you learn several different programming paradigms and
their techniques, switching languages is like switching gears in a car
(almost.)  It never takes that long to dive into a new langauge and if
you have a job that mandates it, then it is even easier because you have
real motivation.  

The idea is to learn that languages are a small piece of the puzzle that
can cause big problems if you have the wrong attitude.  There is no
'best' language that can solve all of your problems but there most
certainly are 'worst' languages that can make projects far tougher than
they need to be.  While C++ and Java look good on a resume, they are
awful at some tasks.  Having a wide range of experience with different
tools makes you a better programmer, even if you aren't on the bleeding
edge of the latest trend.

It's also not really the job of the college (or at least most probably
don't do what is considered a good job at it) to create a resume for the
student.  The student is there to learn principles and how to apply
them,  if the market is demanding java programmers over Eiffel then he
should be motivated enough to learn it regardless of whether or not it
is taught to him at college.  O'Reilly books aren't that expensive.  

If it is real-world-job-finding-resume-fodder that he is interested in,
370asm and COBOL seem to be the hot job winners right now and I don't
think that he'd have learned those at any college anywhere over the last
few years.

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Don Harrison]

Richie Bielak wrote:

:The course of study should include many programming languages,
:as well as literature, art, science and engineering.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I can see a couple of dangers in that - we might become literate and learn how
to design well. :)


Don.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison             donh@syd.csa.com.au

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Robert Dewar]

Eric says

<<When I attended RIT in the early 80's, you did most of your work in
Pascal for the first few years. Nobody in business was using Pascal back
then and, if it wasn't for Borland screwing with a nice, clean, teaching
language, nobody would be using it today. What was being taught were the
principals of design and programming. As I look back over my career, and
my movement from one platform and language to the next, I realize what
an outstanding education I received.
>>


Nonsense, a lot of serious commercial work in the early 80's was being
done in Pascal. Just because you were unaware of it does not mean it
did not exist. 

I am always amazed at people who make this kind of extrapolation from
their own personal experience, without any attempt to determine the facts!

Recently several faculty members at NYU were arguing in favor of teaching
a widely used language (to me a bogus arguyment, which, if followed should
probably mean teaching either COBOL or Visual Basic). What they really mean
of course is that they are in favor of teaching a language that *they*
are using. Even some of the faculty *teaching* Pascal in our introductory
course made the (quite absurd) statement that Pascal is not currently used
in commercial programming.

Going back to the original thread, I would suggest that if someone's view
of college is to learn current technology that you consider saving a whole
heap of money and attend a trade school instead of paying for college!

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Robert Dewar]

<<I stand by my statement, however, in that it was *a lot* easier to get a
job with C or ADA than with Pascal. It is now easier to get a job with
VB or Java than with Eiffel. But of course many people are doing serious
development in Eiffel.
>>


Well the difficulty of getting a job is of course related to the balance
of supply and demand, not to total volume (if you don't believe that, try
to get a job as a professor of History).

It maybe the case that Pascal programmers have been in oversupply, I would
not know, and it maybe that Ada programmers (who no doubt will have an easier
time if they at least know how to spell the name of the language) have been
in relative undersupply. 

Certainly the total volume of code written in Pascal greatly exceeds (both
then and now) the total volume of code written in Ada.

The number of poeple doing serious development in Eiffel is very small, 
probably two orders of magnitude less than those doing work in Pascal.
As far as I can tell, Eiffel has no perceptible share of the PC development
market (neither does Ada), but Pascal (i.e. Delphi) has something like a
5% share. Sure that is one tenth of visual basic, but it is 5% of a HUGE
market.

The share was considerably higher at the time you proclaimed that "nobody"
was using Pascal, so you have a very different meaning to this word than I :-)

RObert.

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Paul Johnson]

In article <33C61545.167EB0E7@tower.com>, ivory@tower.com says...
>
>My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
>that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
>the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
>school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
>language that has real-life value on the job market.

There is an important difference between learning to program, learning
a particular programming language, and learning software engineering.
The three are all different.

C++ (the obvious choice) is a highly complex language, so it takes a
long time to learn.  This is time that will not be spent learning
good, solid software engineering.

OTOH once you have a grounding in software engineering, you can map
the concepts onto C++ fairly easily.  This will help you produce
good software in any language, rather than being restricted to only
one.

Any competent software engineer should know a minimum of 3 languages
simply to get the range of perspectives.

The point about Eiffel is that it is a language for software engineering
rather than merely programming, and so makes a good vehicle for putting
over the concepts of software engineering.  C++ does not.

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson            | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
+44 1245 242244         +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Work: <paul.johnson@gecm.com>       | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
Home: <Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk>    | standards, all different.

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Matthew Heaney]

In article <33C61545.167EB0E7@tower.com>, "ivory@tower.com"
<ivory@tower.com> wrote:

>My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
>that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
>the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
>school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
>language that has real-life value on the job market.
>
>He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat
>agree.  I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of
>ads for them in the classifieds.  Note: I'm not debating whether or
>not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern.  The concern
>is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time
>well spent.
>
>So, what's the (reality based) counter argument?

Your friend's son doesn't know what he is talking about.

I, a proud Ada programmer, fully endorse teaching Eiffel as a first
language as A Good Thing.

For a cogent discussion of this issue, read Teaching the Method, chapter 29
of Object-Oriented Software Construction (2nd ed), by Bertrand Meyer.

The argument that the Eiffel has no "real-life value on the job market" is
completely specious.  You go to college to LEARN HOW TO THINK, not to learn
programming language syntax.  If you want that, why now just save all your
money and go to a trade school?  Or just pick up a programming book at the
corner bookstore?  Hey, Learn C in 14 Days!

If it were that simple, everybody would be doing it.

Try to convince this person to read Meyer's book.  Guys that just want to
learn a "real" programming language, or would rather spend their time
programming instead of engineering, shouldn't be programming at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heaney
Software Development Consultant
<mailto:matthew_heaney@acm.org>
(818) 985-1271

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Walt Howard]

On Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:29:50 -0800, mheaney@ni.net (Matthew
Heaney) wrote:

>In article <33C61545.167EB0E7@tower.com>, "ivory@tower.com"
><ivory@tower.com> wrote:
>
>>My friend's son is looking at colleges, and was startled to see
>>that RIT appears to have a heavy focus on the language Eiffel for
>>the first 2-3 years.  He's using this as a black mark against the
>>school.  The thinking is that he'd rather be learning a 'real'
>>language that has real-life value on the job market.
>>
>>He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat
>>agree.  I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of
>>ads for them in the classifieds.  Note: I'm not debating whether or
>>not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern.  The concern
>>is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time
>>well spent.
>>
>>So, what's the (reality based) counter argument?
>
>Your friend's son doesn't know what he is talking about.
>
>I, a proud Ada programmer, fully endorse teaching Eiffel as a first
>language as A Good Thing.
>
>For a cogent discussion of this issue, read Teaching the Method, chapter 29
>of Object-Oriented Software Construction (2nd ed), by Bertrand Meyer.
>
>The argument that the Eiffel has no "real-life value on the job market" is
>completely specious.  You go to college to LEARN HOW TO THINK, not to learn
>programming language syntax.  If you want that, why now just save all your
>money and go to a trade school?  

	I think most people should, even though it's looked down
upon, the people who go to trade school aren't working in
McDonalds like the programmers who learned skills the job market
didn't want. Most of my programming jobs, though they requiring
loads of work, were quite enjoyable, emotionally rewarding and
financially excellent. 

	You can't beat working with a team of bright people where
every day you learn. Where new and exciting approaches to
problems come up every day, things that you would never have
thought of, even though you yourself have some great ideas.

	Just do what it takes to get that first programming job. 

	My mother teaches art history at Cal Tech. Cal Tech wants to
make sure all the nerds get a little experience with the
humanities. I guess they want them thinking twice when they go to
work on H-Bomb projects. She says her classes are almost entirely
oriental/asian. The Americans aren't going in for the "practical
skills" anymore. Someone is telling them that "History" or
"Poetry" is what they should learn. I think it's pathetic.

>Or just pick up a programming book at the
>corner bookstore?  Hey, Learn C in 14 Days!

	At a rough guess, 95% of the American programmers I know
(microcomputer environment) did just that. They did NOT major or
minor in any field related to computers in college. They were
self taught. Virtually ALL of the foreign (Russian, Chinese and
Indian) programmers were formally educated in computers (probably
immigration only lets in people with formal educations). However
I've seen no real qualitative difference between them. Both
classes (foreign and domestic) programmers were roughly equal in
skill. That's because, a month on a REAL programming job is worth
a year in school so that is where the REAL learning takes place. 

>If it were that simple, everybody would be doing it.

	It's the other way around. Self teaching requires
self-motivation which is a lot harder than mindlessly wandering
though school because your parents wanted you to. If a person
wants to learn, they can do so by themselves. They may not have
the paper to prove it, but that doesn't mean they don't know it.
In the end, it boils down to their own desire to learn anyway, no
matter which way they do that learning. 

	People think that "taking a class" is some magical way to
learn, like the knowledge is going to pour out of the teacher
into them.  It's completely false. Anyone can read books on a
particular subject and learn as much as having someone tell them
what's in the book!

	Now, I'm not talking about "Lab", where you get practical
experience. That you need but you don't have to get it in school.
You can get a grunt programming job and you'll learn from the
other programmers.

>Try to convince this person to read Meyer's book.  Guys that just want to
>learn a "real" programming language, or would rather spend their time
>programming instead of engineering, shouldn't be programming at all.
>
	That's a totally wrong statement. The computer revolution was
caused by the "opening up" of the computer field to ANYONE who
had an interest, no matter what that interest was. Cheap
computers and cheap compilers enabled EVERYONE to have a shot at
exercising their talent. By process of natural selection the
talented, hard working ones rose to the top irrespective of their
education or initial motivations. 

	You should see the source code on some of the most successful
applications. It would make OOP programmers vomit it's so hack,
yet, it didn't require "clean" design or anything to be
successful. ( I get sick to my stomach sometimes because I spend
so much effort making my designs and code simple, understandable
and object oriented but other people who don't, still do ok).

	A hell of a lot of people got interested in computers just
for the fun of programming. The activity itself, coding,
compiling and debugging is loads of fun for some of us.
	
	I think most people are going to college expecting to "get an
education" so they can survive later in the real world. If you
tell them up front they are coming in to "learn how to think", I
think many would bail right then and there.

	While microcomputers were taking over the "REAL" world from
1976 to 1885, colleges were still teaching mainframe stuff. Thus,
a whole army of self-taught programmers took over because
colleges were NOT keeping up with what was really relevant.

	Just remember Bill Gates was a college drop-out.

	Grab the employment section of your newspaper. See what
employers are asking for. They are asking for LANGUAGE knowledge
the vast majority and application domain experience/knowledge. I
have yet to see an employment ad that asked for knowledge on "how
to think". 
	
	"Wanted, a programmer who knows how to think. No experience
necessary. No knowledge of computer languages necessary. Up to
120,000 for right applicant plus benefits".

	I know a "C programmer" who didn't even know what main() was,
who was making 80,000/yr. You don't believe me? I'll tell you
why, later in this post.

	You don't have to be a good software engineer to make a lot
of money as a programmer. Engineering can come later. If
companies are stupid enough to hire people based on language
knowledge, then you should take advantage of that.

	If a job reaches the employment ad stage, the company is
really desperate, so you know those skills are in high demand.

	You aren't going to be happy knowing Eiffel and flipping
burgers at Jack in the Box.

	Learn to support yourself first, then retire at 40 and learn
how to think in your copious free time.

	Walt Howard

	Oh yeah, the programmer who didn't know what main() was?
He was a Windows GUI programmer, who didn't need main, ever.

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Walt Howard]

On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 08:13:50 -0500, Eric Buckley
<Eric.NoSpam.Buckley@edwardjones.com> wrote:

>Walt Howard wrote:
>
>>         I think most people should, even though it's looked down
>> upon, the people who go to trade school aren't working in
>> McDonalds like the programmers who learned skills the job market
>> didn't want.
>
>What skills would those be? Graduates with a solid grounding in theory,
>not to mention those who bother to beef up their non-technical skills
>are in very high demand. I know because I hire these folks. Getting a VB
>programmer is no problem. Getting a VB programmer who understands the
>development process, data modelling, design, testing, how to work in a
>group, and how to work with users is going to cost me plenty - IF I can
>even find such a person.

	Right, so you end up hiring the Common Garden Variety VB
programmer anyway which is better than no one. I see companies
with all these requirements. I had a boss like that, and I used
to say when he asked me how an interview went, "Well, he didn't
have an S on his cape so I don't think you'll like him". Sure
companies want everything, but they aren't willing to pay for it.
If a guy is a good coder AND a good manager, he should get a
salary equal to coder+manager, but of course, that doesn't
happen, so the more you know, the less profitable that knowledge
is. A grunt programmer makes 1/3 what a guy who can code 100
times better makes. Tell me I'm wrong.

	That's why I'm saying to get that initial foot in the door by
being useful to someone. You don't have to know much to make a
living in this industry, but you do have to talk the talk and
know enough to pass the interview. I'm not saying it's right.
Don't you think it's ridiculous that people write their own
resumes? If the U.S. corporate system of hiring people is bogus,
then I say abuse it all you can, it's the only way it'll get
fixed.

	We must be from totally different environments or your
definition of theory is different from mine. I've been in the
room at almost every company when hirees were interviewed and
never once were any of them asked about anything theoretical that
wasn't immediately related to some practical experience. If we
asked them about networking "theory" it was always "how do you
initiate an SNA connection?" or "how did you handle disconnected
IP sessions" or "Here is some C code, can you find the bug?". It
was never "explain euclids theory of prime numbers and how it
relates to encryption". The only theory we were interested in
was, "Can the guy understand enough of his application domain to
get the job done".

	I'm stressing that people need to get into the job market as
a first priority. They can learn whatever they need to later once
they are able to support themselves.

	Some of the "Fortune 500" companies I've worked for were fat
and lazy (and headed for oblivion). They had no competition and
there were no deadlines. We sat around suckling from the pig
until we got so bored that a new job became mandatory. In these
kinds of companies you have time for theoretical discussions.
Decisions that took a week at a small game company  (ferocious
competition) took 2 years at the big, fat lazy company. I
couldn't believe it. Most of the people were working there with
no inspiration. They just wanted their paychecks and to go home.
Taking a nap was the exciting part of my day.

><benefits of a programming job agreed to and snipped>
>
>>         Just do what it takes to get that first programming job.
>
>You may find that there comes a time when you want to be more than just
>a programmer. Perhaps you'll want to go into management (we're not all
>clueless idiots, and if more technical people pursued this path we could
>boot a few of the pointy hairs.) You may want to become an analyst and
>work with users. Or you may want to do something completely different.
>At any rate, a 4-year degree will much better prepare you for such
>changes than a trade school.

	That is, if you ever get that first foot in the door.

>>         My mother teaches art history at Cal Tech. Cal Tech wants to
>> make sure all the nerds get a little experience with the
>> humanities. I guess they want them thinking twice when they go to
>> work on H-Bomb projects. She says her classes are almost entirely
>> oriental/asian. The Americans aren't going in for the "practical
>> skills" anymore. Someone is telling them that "History" or
>> "Poetry" is what they should learn. I think it's pathetic.
>
>I'm not sure I'm following you here. Are you suggesting that Cal Tech
>grads can't find jobs? Or are you saying that Cal Tech teaches too much
>liberal arts? I find either of these statements ludicrous, but maybe you
>meant something else. As far as H-Bomb projects go, you'll need at least
>an M.S. and probably a PhD to get a job at Los Alamos.

	Sorry, I was a bit scattered there. I'm suggesting that
American kids don't respect the technical fields as much as the
foreign kids, preferring to strike out for the more risky but
glamorous occupations like sports, music, art. Occupations like
engineer and programmer and architect can be very rewarding. It's
just hard to demonstrate that to someone in their teens. You
don't have to be filthy rich or famous to be extremely happy.
Anyway, I'm rambling here...

>Finally, don't confuse the class composition at the top schools with a
>sign of American decline. It is because the best US Universities are
>recognized throughout the world that we have so many foreign students.

	Maybe. But there are other reasons like:

	The number of schools we have gives them a large choice.

	English is a second language for a lot of people and a
natural choice to get a foreign education.

	What else are they going to come here for? They can't get in
for jobs unless they are educated. If they didn't need that
formal education, a lot of them might go right into the work
force. And if they want to get into the U.S., a student Visa is
the only way for many of them.	

>The fact that Americans (who represent a mere 5% of the population) make
>up 1/3 to half the class at these schools is a credit to our education
>system. When I was in Cornell's grad program, about 30% of the CS
>students were from the US. The profs were all impressed that they could
>get so many good students from the US considering the intense
>competition from Asia and Europe. We had some bright folks from Canada,
>too. In the undergrad program the ratio was about 70% US. California
>schools get more Asians for the simple reason that California has a much
>larger Asian population than the East Coast. If I was going abroad to
>school I know I'd want a few Americans around. 

>Leaving ones country is a big deal for most people.
	
	Except if you live in a totalitarian regime which makes it a
lot easier. The Chinese programmers I know say that China has
spies over here, pretending to be students, or they have the
students spy on each other and report back. They don't want
people getting their educations and not returning to China.

	Or to live in India where it takes you a 6 months to get a
phone and 1 in 100 get to go to school there.

	Or Russia where it takes you a year to get a phone, if you
know someone,  and god knows what other miseries.

	(Here's a funny anectdote. We were entertaining some Ukranian
programmers (fresh off the plane) and took them to Fry's (a large
computer store). I thought I'd impress them by showing them our
CPU prices. They hemmed and hawed and told me that they could get
them cheaper in the Ukraine).

>> >Or just pick up a programming book at the
>> >corner bookstore?  Hey, Learn C in 14 Days!
>> 
>>         At a rough guess, 95% of the American programmers I know
>> (microcomputer environment) did just that. They did NOT major or
>> minor in any field related to computers in college. They were
>> self taught. Virtually ALL of the foreign (Russian, Chinese and
>> Indian) programmers were formally educated in computers (probably
>> immigration only lets in people with formal educations). However
>> I've seen no real qualitative difference between them. Both
>> classes (foreign and domestic) programmers were roughly equal in
>> skill. That's because, a month on a REAL programming job is worth
>> a year in school so that is where the REAL learning takes place.
>
>Uh, oh. I don't think I want to open this one up agian. I'll just say
>that your 95% number is off. Again, I know this because I hire these
>folks and review their credentials. Granted, as I work for a consulting
>firm, I have to place more value on credentials for marketability
>reasons. One of the reasons that businesses are having trouble hiring
>degreed programmers is that consulting firms are snapping them up at an
>incredible rate (and incredible rates!). However, even at client sites
>(Fortune 500 companies running mission-critical systems) I'd say the
>ratio is more like 50-50 in applications, and in systems programming
>over 75% have CS/IS degrees. I'll certainly concede that at small
>companies running PC's the situation is quite different.
>
><The remainder devoted to the degreed vs. non degreed thread which is a
>somewhat different debate (and a well worn one at that)>
>
>Let me finish by bringing this back to the original thread: does it make
>sense to learn a language that you're not likely to use professionally?
>If, in learning that language, you learn the principals of programming
>then I would say yes. Can you learn the principals using VB, C++, or
>Java? Sure, but that's not the point. As you said yourself, learning a
>language is not that big of a deal. I assert that learning programming
>is a very bid deal indeed. If it wasn't, my job of finding these folks
>would be a whole lot easier.
>________________________

	Ok, well, at least each of our arguments is out there to be
examined by the people to whom it matters. Thanks for the
response.

	Walt Howard

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Henrik Wist]

Walt Howard (walth@netcom.com) wrote:

: 	You can't beat working with a team of bright people where
: every day you learn. Where new and exciting approaches to
: problems come up every day, things that you would never have
: thought of, even though you yourself have some great ideas.

: 	Just do what it takes to get that first programming job. 

: 	My mother teaches art history at Cal Tech. Cal Tech wants to
: make sure all the nerds get a little experience with the
: humanities. I guess they want them thinking twice when they go to
: work on H-Bomb projects. She says her classes are almost entirely
: oriental/asian. The Americans aren't going in for the "practical
: skills" anymore. Someone is telling them that "History" or
: "Poetry" is what they should learn. I think it's pathetic.

imho very wise words spoken :-)

: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) wrote:
: >Or just pick up a programming book at the
: >corner bookstore?  Hey, Learn C in 14 Days!

: 	At a rough guess, 95% of the American programmers I know
: (microcomputer environment) did just that. They did NOT major or
: minor in any field related to computers in college. They were
: self taught. Virtually ALL of the foreign (Russian, Chinese and
: Indian) programmers were formally educated in computers (probably
: immigration only lets in people with formal educations). However
: I've seen no real qualitative difference between them. Both
: classes (foreign and domestic) programmers were roughly equal in
: skill. That's because, a month on a REAL programming job is worth
: a year in school so that is where the REAL learning takes place. 

: >If it were that simple, everybody would be doing it.

: 	It's the other way around. Self teaching requires
: self-motivation which is a lot harder than mindlessly wandering
: though school because your parents wanted you to. If a person
: wants to learn, they can do so by themselves. They may not have
: the paper to prove it, but that doesn't mean they don't know it.
: In the end, it boils down to their own desire to learn anyway, no
: matter which way they do that learning. 

Although I agree with you, I have to admit that it is sometimes better to
have one who corrects mistakes you make (count 'bad style' as a mistake). 
Self teaching lacks the possibility of being under supervision (ok, if you
have a bad teacher the problem still exists :-).

: 	People think that "taking a class" is some magical way to
: learn, like the knowledge is going to pour out of the teacher
: into them.  
Indeed, usually 50-75% of the people in a class just sit there and read
newspaper (*sigh*) or sleep.
: It's completely false. Anyone can read books on a
: particular subject and learn as much as having someone tell them
: what's in the book!
Ahhh but teachers _should_ (and the most I know do) not just tell you what's
written in a book but give you more information on a subject. And of course
teacher can answer questions on the subjects. Books can't cover all
questions that might arise

[...]
: 	You should see the source code on some of the most successful
: applications. It would make OOP programmers vomit it's so hack,
: yet, it didn't require "clean" design or anything to be
: successful. ( I get sick to my stomach sometimes because I spend
: so much effort making my designs and code simple, understandable
: and object oriented but other people who don't, still do ok).

I can feel with you (I tend to get frustrated seeing the other guys just
hacking away and me still writing designs). Until now (ok, since i'm still a
student, not that much projects) there was a point in every project where
others couldn't find bugs (quick) in their code because it was 'one great hack'.
The time spent in design and simple code is payed back later and that's what
keeps me spending that time.

[...]
: 	Oh yeah, the programmer who didn't know what main() was?
: He was a Windows GUI programmer, who didn't need main, ever.
I don't comment on that one :-) Regards,
Henrik
-- 
goose@MuFFiN.Org    // IRC: |GOOSE| //   wist@informatik.tu-muenchen.de

"I am not under the alkafluence of inkahol that some thinkle peep I am.
 It is just the drunker I sit here the longer I get."

Technical Professionals and the humnaities ( Was: Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?)

[Chris Kuan]

Walt Howard wrote:

>         My mother teaches art history at Cal Tech. Cal Tech wants to
> make sure all the nerds get a little experience with the
> humanities. I guess they want them thinking twice when they go to
> work on H-Bomb projects. She says her classes are almost entirely
> oriental/asian. The Americans aren't going in for the "practical
> skills" anymore. Someone is telling them that "History" or
> "Poetry" is what they should learn. I think it's pathetic.

Read "Genius" by Gleick. It's a biography of Richard Feynman,
and describes how he was forced to take some humanities subjects.
He worked on the Manhattan Project, as well as later going to
Cal Tech. 

OK, he wasn't a computer scientist, but it's interesting anyway.

-- 
Chris Kuan, BHP Information Technology
Concatenate for email: kuan.chris.ch @ bhp.com.au
Phone : +61 42 75 5665  Fax : +61 42 75 5547

Re: Technical Professionals and the humnaities ( Was: Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?)

[Paul Johnson]

In article <33CECAB3.2AB8@sig.please>, look@sig.please says...

[On Richard Feynman]

>OK, he wasn't a computer scientist, but it's interesting anyway.

Actually he was, in later years.  He did some consulting for Thinking
Machines.  I saw a TV programme where one of the people at TM talked
about Feynman's work with them.  Apparently Feynman proposed an
improved architecture for the machine after doing some maths that
involved the number of 1s in the computer.

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson            | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
+44 1245 242244         +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Work: <paul.johnson@gecm.com>       | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
Home: <Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk>    | standards, all different.

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Robert Dewar]

Paul said

<<C++ (the obvious choice) is a highly complex language, so it takes a
long time to learn.  This is time that will not be spent learning
good, solid software engineering.
>>

Actually I don't think that C++ is the "obvious choice" any more. Among
academics chasing relevancy, C++ seems to be the language of yesterday,
the language du jour appears to be Java.

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Frieder Monninger]

Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote:

> The only CS topic I've seen hyped more is OLE.
> ----------------------------
> Thaddeus L. Olczyk

(whats about java ;-)

btw, I am certainly not a disciple of meyer ...
but I have written a book about Eiffel. My question:
how much time you spent learning the concepts behind Eiffel ?

I must say that in Java is nothing which is not in Eiffel -
(I don't speak about things like "a.b := 3" .. nobody even
 in Java should do ;-)
 sp learnig Java is simple if you understood Eiffel.


-- 
Frieder Monninger                            fm@object-tools.com
Object Tools GmbH                    http://www.object-tools.com
D 35619 Braunfels                              + 49 6472-911 030

Re: Technical Professionals and the humnaities ( Was: Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?)

[Thaddeus L. Olczyk]

Paul Johnson <paul.johnson@gecm.com> wrote in article
<5qnchq$ft$5@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>...
> In article <33CECAB3.2AB8@sig.please>, look@sig.please says...
> 
> [On Richard Feynman]
> 
> >OK, he wasn't a computer scientist, but it's interesting anyway.
> 
> Actually he was, in later years.  He did some consulting for Thinking
> Machines.  I saw a TV programme where one of the people at TM talked
> about Feynman's work with them.  Apparently Feynman proposed an
> improved architecture for the machine after doing some maths that
> involved the number of 1s in the computer.
> 
Interesting. Feynam wrote a book about programming. I've been debating
buying
it, but have put it off due to the "too much to read" phenomena. Now I've
got to reconsider.

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Don Harrison]

Matt Heaney wrote:

:>He's asked me for my opinion, and I'd have to say that I somewhat
:>agree.  I've never met an Eiffel programer, and don't see a lot of
:>ads for them in the classifieds.  Note: I'm not debating whether or
:>not Eiffel is a good language; that's not the concern.  The concern
:>is whether or not the job market will see this as having been time
:>well spent.
:>
:>So, what's the (reality based) counter argument?
:
:Your friend's son doesn't know what he is talking about.
:
:I, a proud Ada programmer, fully endorse teaching Eiffel as a first
:language as A Good Thing.
:
:For a cogent discussion of this issue, read Teaching the Method, chapter 29
:of Object-Oriented Software Construction (2nd ed), by Bertrand Meyer.
:
:The argument that the Eiffel has no "real-life value on the job market" is
:completely specious.  You go to college to LEARN HOW TO THINK, not to learn
:programming language syntax.  If you want that, why now just save all your
:money and go to a trade school?  Or just pick up a programming book at the
:corner bookstore?  Hey, Learn C in 14 Days!
:
:If it were that simple, everybody would be doing it.
:
:Try to convince this person to read Meyer's book.  Guys that just want to
:learn a "real" programming language, or would rather spend their time
:programming instead of engineering, shouldn't be programming at all.

Well said!


Don.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison             donh@syd.csa.com.au

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Joachim Durchholz]

Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote:
> On the other hand he is right in the following sense: Eiffel is one of
> the
> most
> overhyped languages around.

It's difficult to overhype a language that *is* good.
It is not perfect, but it has some very unique features. I know of no
other language that can serve both for formalizing analysis and for
actual programming, which I thought impossible not too many years ago.

It is not the language that's overhyped. It is the IDEs, which are
generally years behind the mainstream (but catching up).

> Every introduction either is written by
> Meyer
> or one of his disciples.

So what?

> IMHO Meyer has been driven mad by the fact
> the
> Eiffel has been
> beaten out by C++.

Well, personal attacks always raise my suspicion that the arguments for
the issue are getting thin...

> ... or
> join
> the cult and
> become virtually umemployable by anyone who does not use Eiffel for
> development.

Well, I'm currently looking for a new job, so I might contribute my
personal experiences here (which are limited to Germany, but most of it
should apply to the U.S. in a general way).

My interview partners usually became interested when I told them that I
know more of C++ than just the syntax and semantics. They must have been
swamped with programmers who use C++ just as a better C. Even more
surprising, many knew that Eiffel exists.
Of course you cannot go into a shop and tell them that C++ is scrap,
especially if they are using the language in everyday use. But many
readily agreed that C++ is a transition technology.

Of course there are shops that say "we're doing Visual C++ with MFC,
that's enough OO for us". These shops are those that code business logic
directly into the GUI layer (because MFC doesn't allow easy separation
of layers, and the next deadline is always too near for getting things
polished). And these are the shops that will fire their coders soon
enough - they'll need analysts, because coding will be less of an issue.

Yes, programmers have already begun to make themselves more superfluous.
It hasn't been publicly noticed yet, because the total workload has
increased by the same amount. But those who are mentally underequipped
or just undereducated have already begun to feel the pressure. I expect
COBOL coders to experience serious troubles at about year 2003, when the
Y2K issues are settled. Those who are smart enough can go into analysis,
and those who are educated enough can go into the challenging coding
jobs (where algorithms are written, not just executed), but the vast
majority who know how to make 24x80 forms on a 3270 terminal and issue
SQL statements will be out in the cold.

Regards,
Joachim
-- 
Please don't send unsolicited ads.

Re: Technical Professionals and the humnaities ( Was: Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?)

[Joseph M. Saur]

On 20 Jul 1997, Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote:

> Interesting. Feynam wrote a book about programming. I've been debating
> buying
> it, but have put it off due to the "too much to read" phenomena. Now I've
> got to reconsider.

	Really?  What was the title?  

	Joe Saur

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Jan Bielawski]

In article <dewar.869256970@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Paul said
> 
> <<C++ (the obvious choice) is a highly complex language, so it takes a
> long time to learn.  This is time that will not be spent learning
> good, solid software engineering.
> >>

Well, *life* is highly complex.  I don't think it's possible to
write sophisticated software in a non-"highly complex language."

To expect to be able to deal with modern technology by means of
a "simple" language which does not require one to "waste" time
on mastering it is dreamland.  Kind of reminds me of those
misguided hobbyists on sci.physics.* newsgroups who dream about
creating a "unified theory of everything" while never learning
any mathematics since it's "_just_ a _language_ of physics."

> Actually I don't think that C++ is the "obvious choice" any more. Among
> academics chasing relevancy, C++ seems to be the language of yesterday,
> the language du jour appears to be Java.

Java and C++ are different languages with application domains
merely overlapping here and there.
-- 
Jan Bielawski                        )\._.,--....,'``.
Molecular Simulations, Inc.         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
San Diego, CA                   fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
jpb@msi.com  http://www.msi.com
 
 -disclaimer-
 unless stated otherwise, everything in the above message is personal opinion
 and nothing in it is an official statement of molecular simulations inc.

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Glenn Williamson]

Yeah, Eiffel may not be one of the most efficient or popular languages
in the world ... far from it ... and for the most part, I dreaded
learning it at University. I found it slow, unwieldy and close to useless.

However, In my opinion, it is the perfect language to teach the 
principles of Object-Oriented Programming. While C and C++ may dominate
in the workplace, we all had to start somewhere, and I think Eiffel 
would have been the ideal choice for me ... and for anyone deciding to 
take up OOP ;)

            m00,
                Glenn

Glenn Williamson
Computer Science Cadet ( TAB of NSW )
University of Technology, Sydney

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Brian Rogoff]

On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Glenn Williamson wrote:
> ... about Eiffel ...

> However, In my opinion, it is the perfect language to teach the 
> principles of Object-Oriented Programming. While C and C++ may dominate

But what if you think that there is far more to programming than OOP? That 
functional, constraint, and logic programming are equally important 
"paradigms"? Personally, I'd prefer my intro programming course to be in 
Scheme, using Abelson and Sussman's text. Maybe it doesn't have teach the 
methodology du jour, but I found that the material in that book has hardly 
aged since I took the class about a decade ago!

-- Brian

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970730073454.15333B-100000@shellx.best.com> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Glenn Williamson wrote:
> > ... about Eiffel ...
> 
> > However, In my opinion, it is the perfect language to teach the 
> > principles of Object-Oriented Programming. While C and C++ may dominate
> 
> But what if you think that there is far more to programming than OOP? That 
> functional, constraint, and logic programming are equally important 
> "paradigms"?

Exactly.  Actually, functional, IMO, is significantly more important
than OO.


> Personally, I'd prefer my intro programming course to be in Scheme,
> using Abelson and Sussman's text. Maybe it doesn't have teach the
> methodology du jour, but I found that the material in that book has
> hardly aged since I took the class about a decade ago!

Indeed.  In 20 years SICP will still be highly relevant, useful, and
probably fresh.  OO may well have been tossed on the junk heap by
then, but in any event (IMO) will not be holding center stage.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
OMI, Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Brian Kimball]

What IDE or compiler did you use?  When?

In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970730134300.20664A-100000@charlie>, Glenn 
Williamson <gdwillia@socs.uts.EDU.AU> wrote:
>Yeah, Eiffel may not be one of the most efficient or popular languages
>in the world ... far from it ... and for the most part, I dreaded
>learning it at University. I found it slow, unwieldy and close to useless.
>
>However, In my opinion, it is the perfect language to teach the 
>principles of Object-Oriented Programming. While C and C++ may dominate
>in the workplace, we all had to start somewhere, and I think Eiffel 
>would have been the ideal choice for me ... and for anyone deciding to 
>take up OOP ;)
>
>            m00,
>                Glenn
>
>Glenn Williamson
>Computer Science Cadet ( TAB of NSW )
>University of Technology, Sydney
>
>

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Don Harrison]

Glenn Williamson wrote:

:.. I found it slow, unwieldy and close to useless.

This statement is quite meaningless. 

In terms of speed, you don't say which IDE, which version, what processor you 
were running it on, what it's clock speed was, which assertions you had turned 
on (presumably all), etc.

In terms of unwieldy and utility, no doubt you were disappointed that you 
couldn't do all the fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants stuff you can do in C/C++.

:Glenn Williamson
:Computer Science Cadet ( TAB of NSW )
                  ^^^^^
I think this pretty much sums it up. Maybe after 15 years or so of falling
into all the pitfalls of C/C++, it might dawn on you that there are good 
reasons for the constraints in Eiffel. I won't hold my breath, though.


Don.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison             donh@syd.csa.com.au

Re: Why I didn't like Eiffel

[Glenn Williamson]

On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Brian Kimball wrote:

> What IDE or compiler did you use?  When?

I used two different packages. The first was Unix based, I think it was 
called ISE Eiffel, v3.x.x. The main gripes with this package were :

	1) It took nearly 30 minutes to compile a simple 'Hello World'!!!
	   This was at a 'GooD TimE' too .... If the Uni computers were
	   congested at any time, say, close to an assignment being due,
	   then it may take twice as long. 
	
	2) The size of the executable on this particular system was
	   enormous. 'Hello World' came in at over 3Mb!!! Thankfully, this
	   problem was solved by SysProgs at the Uni midway thru semester.

The second package I used was Windows Based. It was the commercial version
of ISE Eiffel, which I ran on my PC at home, was far better. MY gripe with
this package, was that it didnt leave me an executable, and it didnt come
with any graphic libraries .... ( and I couldnt have been bothered going 
out looking for any! )

Don't get me wrong, I dont hate Eiffel with a vengeance, I just found that
the particular system I used didnt suit me at all ... I prefer getting
down amongst it all in C or C++, rather than being constrained by Eiffel .

	M00z,
		Glenn

P.S. I used it in the first semester of this year ....

I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Jakob Engblom]

Jon S Anthony wrote:
> 
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970730073454.15333B-100000@shellx.best.com> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Glenn Williamson wrote:
> > > ... about Eiffel ...
> >
> > > However, In my opinion, it is the perfect language to teach the
> > > principles of Object-Oriented Programming. While C and C++ may dominate
> >
> > But what if you think that there is far more to programming than OOP? That
> > functional, constraint, and logic programming are equally important
> > "paradigms"?
> 
> Exactly.  Actually, functional, IMO, is significantly more important
> than OO.
> 

In  my opnion, Eiffel is a wonderful OO language, with a nice syntax and
some very powerful support for proper Software Engineering built-in.  It
was designed by people who knew what they were doing, and as a teaching
language it IS superb, just like PASCAL is a good beginning of
programming imperative. 

But still OOP is perhaps a paradigm, but I would rather say an
orthogonal concept to the various calculation models used out there:
functional, imperative, logical, stackbased, assembler,
constraint-based.

Another orthogonal concept is parallellism, and its stronger brother
distribution.

A few examples: 
  Erlang (www.ericsson.se/erlang) is processbased and functional.
  Ada 95 is OOP, Imperative and parallel
  CLOS is functinal and OOP
  Oz (http://www.sics.se/~seif/oz.html) is functional, logical, OOP, 
     parallel and distributed

I think that a computer science student should be comfortable
programming everything from assembly language to PROLOG, and be able to
add concepts like inheritance, object-orientation, parallelism and data
hiding across the board. 

Teaching PROGRAMMING in C or C++ is ridiculous, as you get bogged down
in silly details. If you're students need it, they will learn it on
their own. The job of the university is to teach concepts that will
last, and not todays high-fashion languages. 

Use the language best suited for each field to teach it, and give your
students a broad view of the exciting field of programming and
programming languages. 

/jakob


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Jakob "Fepp" Engblom  | * Computer Science Student @ Uppsala
University |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   e-mail: jakob@acm.org, jakob@docs.uu.se  | Room 1346,
Polackbacken     | 
| homepage: www.docs.uu.se/~jakob            | Phone 018-471 10
61         |
|                                            | or Room 1210, no phone
:-(  |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  * Working on my Master's Thesis (www.docs.uu.se/~jakob/exjobb)
  * PR for the CS program
  * and an Internet book (www.ordvet.se/nyttan)

BEST ANAGRAM OF MY NAME: ankle bomb jog

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Nick Payne]

Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria.organon.com> wrote in article 
> Indeed.  In 20 years SICP will still be highly relevant, useful, and
> probably fresh.  OO may well have been tossed on the junk heap by
> then, but in any event (IMO) will not be holding center stage.

What makes you think that civilisation will still be here in 20 years? Face
it, what we play around with on computers is just so much irrelevant crap.
Which is not to say that I don't enjoy doing it...I just recognise that the
end of the line is not so far off...

Nick Payne
njpayne@pcug.org.au.NOSPAM

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Walt Howard]

On Fri, 01 Aug 1997 11:51:10 +0200, Jakob Engblom
<jakob@docs.uu.se> wrote:

>Jon S Anthony wrote:
>> 
>> In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970730073454.15333B-100000@shellx.best.com> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Glenn Williamson wrote:
>> > > ... about Eiffel ...
>> >
>> > > However, In my opinion, it is the perfect language to teach the
>> > > principles of Object-Oriented Programming. While C and C++ may dominate
>> >
	I agree. C++ let's you slide. It's up to the programmer to
discipline himself not to break OOP. It's not good to teach OOP
with C++ because you already have to understand OOP to use C++
correctly.

>> > But what if you think that there is far more to programming than OOP? That
>> > functional, constraint, and logic programming are equally important
>> > "paradigms"?
	
	I think OOP is the terminal paradigm. It is like the wheel.
We're there. We've arrived at the proper way to build software.
We may make some minor adjustments in the future but the paradigm
itself will be our computing core for hundreds, if not thousands
of years. But that's just speculation of course.
 
>> Exactly.  Actually, functional, IMO, is significantly more important
>> than OO.
>> 
>In  my opnion, Eiffel is a wonderful OO language, with a nice syntax and
>some very powerful support for proper Software Engineering built-in.  It
>was designed by people who knew what they were doing, and as a teaching
>language it IS superb, just like PASCAL is a good beginning of
>programming imperative. 
>
>But still OOP is perhaps a paradigm, but I would rather say an
>orthogonal concept to the various calculation models used out there:
>functional, imperative, logical, stackbased, assembler,
>constraint-based.

	Right.

>Another orthogonal concept is parallellism, and its stronger brother
>distribution.

	Distribution is a specialization of OOP, or vice versa, they
are the same thing.

>
>A few examples: 
>  Erlang (www.ericsson.se/erlang) is processbased and functional.
>  Ada 95 is OOP, Imperative and parallel
>  CLOS is functinal and OOP
>  Oz (http://www.sics.se/~seif/oz.html) is functional, logical, OOP, 
>     parallel and distributed
>
>I think that a computer science student should be comfortable
>programming everything from assembly language to PROLOG, and be able to
>add concepts like inheritance, object-orientation, parallelism and data
>hiding across the board. 

	It sure would be nice to have that.

>Teaching PROGRAMMING in C or C++ is ridiculous, as you get bogged down
>in silly details. If you're students need it, they will learn it on
>their own. The job of the university is to teach concepts that will
>last, and not todays high-fashion languages. 

	I agree with you up to this point.

	C and C++ are not high-fashion languages. C has had constant
growth since it's creation. C++ looks to be the spearhead that is
getting OOP accepted universally, despite it's problems. Sending
someone out into the real world knowing Pascal instead of C is
like sending a soldier into a battlefield with a BB Gun while
everyone else has an M16.

	I haven't yet seen anyone put their finger on why C is so
popular. I'd like to put forth a possible reason. 

	C and C++ are exploratory languages. C is really a thin shell
over assembly language. Just enough of a language to be portable
to different processors. It's a good balance between too much
detail (assembly) and too little access to the machine (COBOL).

	It has no built in functions. No one decided that there was a
perfect way to do something and forced the programmer to do it
that way. Each programmer is allowed free reign to come up with
new and unlimited uses of the computer.

	The main instrument which expresses this exploratory nature
of C is pointers.  The concept of Pointers (addresses) and a
Stack are arguably probably the most important concepts in
computer programming. Just about everything extends from them. If
a language doesn't let you manipulate these things directly, you
are cut off from 90% of what programming is about.

	C++ adds a little more, but the only radical departure in my
opinion from C, is virtual functions. And once again, C++
provides the MINIMAL compiler machinery to implement these. You
can implement any other high level language polymorphism concept
with C++ or C, but you can't do the reverse.

	What I'm saying is, you can write a Prolog interpreter, a
Smalltalk interpreter, a Fortan Compiler etc etc etc in C! But
you can't do the reverse. This is because these higher level
languages do not let you do certain things which are part and
parcel of the very woop and warf of computer programming.

	No one man, or committee has had the final word on the best
way to do something. Languages that attempt to enforce someone
else's best way don't succeed in the free market as well as those
that do. I don't know how many of my friends who program in
Visual Basic say, "Some day I'm going to have to rewrite this in
C++". I never hear anyone say, "Someday I'm going to have to
rewrite this in Visual Basic".

	I'd say that C and C++ are the BEST way to teach basic
programming. Once someone understands the basics of the computer,

stacks, addresses, linked lists, trees, but implementing them
himself with a language such as C, then he should graduate up to
being able to ignore the details and use a higher level language.

	C is the simplest language there is to learn. If you leave
out the compiler and talk about only the language, it has less
syntax to learn than basic (don't include the standard library in
the definition of C). But it can be made more complex than
anything else once you get good with it. It spans a large range
of complexity.

	This doesn't mean I think C and C++ are the best languages
for every use, I don't.

	Now, I am actually more in favor of people learning a
valuable skill that will make them a living first, then learning
the details. So, if Visual Basic is in demand, learn that first.

	Walt Howard

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Sean Case]

In article <JSA.97Jul30150612@alexandria.organon.com>,
jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) wrote:

>Indeed.  In 20 years SICP will still be highly relevant, useful, and
>probably fresh.  OO may well have been tossed on the junk heap by
>then, but in any event (IMO) will not be holding center stage.

Object oriented programming has been going for thirty years - what's
another twenty?

Sean Case

Re: Why I didn't like Eiffel

[Ian Nelson]

Glenn Williamson wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Brian Kimball wrote:
> 
> > What IDE or compiler did you use?  When?
> 
> I used two different packages. The first was Unix based, I think it was
> called ISE Eiffel, v3.x.x. The main gripes with this package were :
> 
>         1) It took nearly 30 minutes to compile a simple 'Hello World'!!!
>            This was at a 'GooD TimE' too .... If the Uni computers were
>            congested at any time, say, close to an assignment being due,
>            then it may take twice as long.
> 
>         2) The size of the executable on this particular system was
>            enormous. 'Hello World' came in at over 3Mb!!! Thankfully, this
>            problem was solved by SysProgs at the Uni midway thru semester.
> 
> The second package I used was Windows Based. It was the commercial version
> of ISE Eiffel, which I ran on my PC at home, was far better. MY gripe with
> this package, was that it didnt leave me an executable, and it didnt come
> with any graphic libraries .... ( and I couldnt have been bothered going
> out looking for any! )
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I dont hate Eiffel with a vengeance, I just found that
> the particular system I used didnt suit me at all ... I prefer getting
> down amongst it all in C or C++, rather than being constrained by Eiffel .
> 
>         M00z,
>                 Glenn
> 
> P.S. I used it in the first semester of this year ....


On a sort of unrelated issue.. Does anyone know if anybody is writing an
Eiffel front-end for the Gnu compiler yet?  It is on the to-do list but
I've not heard of any projects.

At the very least it would make the Ada vs. Eiffel debate a little more
entertaining if some of the Eiffel folks stepped up to the challenge.

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Ian Nelson]

Walt Howard wrote:

>         I think OOP is the terminal paradigm. It is like the wheel.
> We're there. We've arrived at the proper way to build software.
> We may make some minor adjustments in the future but the paradigm
> itself will be our computing core for hundreds, if not thousands
> of years. But that's just speculation of course.

I kind of agree with this to some extent.  OOP will best mimmick the
world as the human mind sees it, and this will always be good when it
comes to producing applications.  OOP will probably change over time,
possibly in major ways but the religion will be the same and they will
still call it OOP.  
That and functional programing will be the two paradigms that count in
20 years, and they will probably barrow so many ideas from each other
that they will be the same in many ways by then. (of course zealots from
either camp would never admit that...)

> >Teaching PROGRAMMING in C or C++ is ridiculous, as you get bogged down
> >in silly details. If you're students need it, they will learn it on
> >their own. The job of the university is to teach concepts that will
> >last, and not todays high-fashion languages.
> 
>         I agree with you up to this point.
> 
>         C and C++ are not high-fashion languages. C has had constant
> growth since it's creation. C++ looks to be the spearhead that is
> getting OOP accepted universally, despite it's problems. Sending
> someone out into the real world knowing Pascal instead of C is
> like sending a soldier into a battlefield with a BB Gun while
> everyone else has an M16.

There are two sides to this.  I suppose it is kind of like comparing a
vocational school to a university; you will leave the vocational school
with a skill and the ability to make a living but you probably won't
have the long term earning power of a university grad and you will
likely find yourself back at the vocational school in 10 years learning
something new because your old skill isn't as useful. 
 
>         I haven't yet seen anyone put their finger on why C is so
> popular. I'd like to put forth a possible reason.

Compilers are written, it's free, there is a code base, UNIX, UNIX was
free, and 10-20 years ago people were scared that you couldn't write
good apps without assembly and C takes you there. The fact that people
started using it caused people to start learning it which in turn
encourages some more usage. 
 

>         What I'm saying is, you can write a Prolog interpreter, a
> Smalltalk interpreter, a Fortan Compiler etc etc etc in C! But
> you can't do the reverse. This is because these higher level

I hate to sound like an academic but, would you care to prove that?  
 
>         I'd say that C and C++ are the BEST way to teach basic
> programming. Once someone understands the basics of the computer,
> stacks, addresses, linked lists, trees, but implementing them
> himself with a language such as C, then he should graduate up to
> being able to ignore the details and use a higher level language.

What about functional programming?  Object Oriented Programming? 
Logic?  the 'basics' you mention are a really basic part of one
paradigm.  
 
>         C is the simplest language there is to learn. If you leave
> out the compiler and talk about only the language, it has less
> syntax to learn than basic (don't include the standard library in
> the definition of C). But it can be made more complex than
> anything else once you get good with it. It spans a large range
> of complexity.

How complex does it need to be so that it is useful?

Re: Eiffel anyone? - Who uses it?

[Walt Howard]

On 2 Aug 97 09:28:20 GMT, "Nick Payne"
<njpayne@pcug.org.au.NOSPAM> wrote:

>Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria.organon.com> wrote in article 
>> Indeed.  In 20 years SICP will still be highly relevant, useful, and
>> probably fresh.  OO may well have been tossed on the junk heap by
>> then, but in any event (IMO) will not be holding center stage.
>
>What makes you think that civilisation will still be here in 20 years? Face
>it, what we play around with on computers is just so much irrelevant crap.
>Which is not to say that I don't enjoy doing it...I just recognise that the
>end of the line is not so far off...
>
	Good. You're right. Go away now. That will leave more for the
rest of us.

	Walt Howard

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Robert Dewar]

<<<<>         I think OOP is the terminal paradigm. It is like the wheel.
> We're there. We've arrived at the proper way to build software.
> We may make some minor adjustments in the future but the paradigm
> itself will be our computing core for hundreds, if not thousands
> of years. But that's just speculation of course.
>>

If this were true would one not expect at least a fair number of C++
programs to use this paradigm. The great majority do not. I actually
wonder whether in a conversation like this people are even vaguely
talking about the same thing, I suspect not!

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Matt Kennel (Remove 'NOSPAM' to reply)]

On Sat, 02 Aug 1997 10:51:32 -0600, Ian Nelson <> wrote:
:Walt Howard wrote:
:
:>         I think OOP is the terminal paradigm. It is like the wheel.
:> We're there. We've arrived at the proper way to build software.
:> We may make some minor adjustments in the future but the paradigm
:> itself will be our computing core for hundreds, if not thousands
:> of years. But that's just speculation of course.
:
:I kind of agree with this to some extent.

I agree and disagree.

OO is hardly the terminus, but its useful ideas will remain in some form
or another.

Historical precedent: 

Fortran I introduced the "Subroutine" in a high level langauge to the
world. 

We program with nothing like that Fortran, and yet that idea has still
remained the single most important idea in software engineering, for entirely
legitimate reasons. 

The only reason that software engineering even exists, of course, is because
of the stored program, so I guess that's even more fundamental.  

-- 
*        Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD           -
* "People who send spam to Emperor Cartagia... vanish! _They say_ that
* there's a room where he has their heads, lined up in a row on a desk...
* _They say_ that late at night, he goes there, and talks to them... _they
*- say_ he asks them, 'Now tell me again, how _do_ you make money fast?'"

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Robert Dewar]

Matt said

<<Fortran I introduced the "Subroutine" in a high level langauge to the
world.
>>

Only to the extent that Fortran I introduced high level languages at all,
the notion of subroutine is much older, and much more fundamental. You
might as well say that Fortran I introduced assignments, variables etc.
to the world of high level languages ...

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[W. Wesley Groleau x4923]

>         I think [OOP] is the terminal paradigm. It is like the wheel.
> We're there. We've arrived at the proper [way to build software].
> We may make some minor adjustments in the future but the paradigm
> itself will be our [computing core] for hundreds, if not thousands
> of years. But that's just speculation of course.

Except for the words in brackets, people have said this for hundreds,
if not thousands, of years.

>         C and C++ are not high-fashion languages. C has had constant
> growth since it's creation. C++ looks to be the spearhead that is
> getting OOP accepted universally, despite it's problems. Sending
> someone out into the real world knowing Pascal instead of C is
> like sending a soldier into a battlefield with a BB Gun while
> everyone else has an M16.

More like sending a soldier out with hand-grenades while everyone 
else has 50-gallon drums of nitroglycerine or picric acid.  :-)

>         What I'm saying is, you can write a Prolog interpreter, a
> Smalltalk interpreter, a Fortan Compiler etc etc etc in C! But
> you can't do the reverse. This is because these higher level
> languages do not let you do certain things which are part and
> parcel of the very woop and warf of computer programming.

First you say OOP is the ultimate, and then you seem to say
the "woop and warf" [sic] are only in C ?  Do you need directions?
An excellent Ada compiler has been written in Ada.  A good (hearsay)
COBOL compiler has been written in COBOL.  Most FORTH systems are
written in FORTH.  What does that do to your argument?
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS                  Tool-smith Wanna-be
                    wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com

Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked!  All disk space
on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or 
the United States government.  Using email to store YOUR advertising 
on them is trespassing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: C/C++ is the best teaching language??!?

[HARRY R. ERWIN]

IMHO, it takes 3-4 semesters of coursework to qualify an entry level
programmer in C++. The first semester addresses everything through
classes; the second covers data structures, more classes, templates,
inheritance, etc.; the third is advanced algorithms, exceptions, the
standard libraries, and larger programs. The fourth semester is a course
in software engineering with a large team project. A language where
competency requires 18-24 months of practice is probably not a good
teaching language. We use it because the students are motivated ($) to
learn it. 

--
Harry Erwin, Internet: herwin@gmu.edu, 
Web Page: http://osf1.gmu.edu/~herwin 
PhD student in computational neuroscience (how bats echolocate)
Lecturer for CS 211 (data structures and advanced C++)
Senior Software Analyst supporting the FAA

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Andrew Semprebon]

Ian Nelson wrote:
> 
> I kind of agree with this to some extent.  OOP will best mimmick the
> world as the human mind sees it, and this will always be good when it
> comes to producing applications.  OOP will probably change over time,
> possibly in major ways but the religion will be the same and they will
> still call it OOP.

Does anyone else find this (often pushed) view of OOP a bit ironic?
Some counter examples:

1.  Many developers have had difficulty in learning OOP, and Steve
McConnell (in his book "Rapid Development") even goes so far as to
say that OOP is too difficult for the average programmer to do.

2.  Not long ago there was a discussion in (I think) comp.object
as to whether use cases were OO.  The consenses seemed to be that
they were not, but were still very useful for communicating with
users who would not otherwise understand the results of 
object-oriented analysis.

I don't see the OO paradigm as any more natural than, say, mathematical
reasoning, and yet both are, IMHO, very useful when developing programs.
OO is good because it forces us to change the way we think, to think
more clearly, not because it mimics the way we normally think.

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Walt Howard]

On Fri, 8 Aug 1997 04:41:57 GMT, "W. Wesley Groleau x4923"
<wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> wrote:

>> 1.  Many developers have had difficulty in learning OOP, and Steve
>> McConnell (in his book "Rapid Development") even goes so far as to
>> say that OOP is too difficult for the average programmer to do.

	I think he's right.

>OOP is difficult when OOP is defined and practiced by extremists in
>a way that makes it difficult.  This is diametrically opposed to the
>truth that OOP is often (NOT always) a natural way of viewing things.

	I would agree with the first statement. In most shops I've
been around, it takes an average C programmer 2 to 5 years to
wake up to OOP. A lot of them just don't get the point. 

	I mean really, 20% of programmers I've know don't even
understand how to break a program into functions! How many 800
line main()s have you seen? I've seen plenty. There is no way
that a function impaired programmer is going to grasp OOP which
is the next level up.

	The main hurdle I've found is that they mostly don't
understand why encapsulation is a good thing.

	Until they do, there is no way they'll take the effort to
design classes. Learning a new paradigm is difficult enough. If
you don't want to learn it because you think it's silly, it's
downright impossible.

	That is why programmers should learn a strict OOP language,
so they can't cheat. It FORCES them to design classes. Something
like Java might be good for C programmers. But they should learn
C first because learning programming should give one a brief
exposure to the way our modern paradigms were developed and why.
So learning the "old way" just enough to understand why the new
way is better is a good thing, otherwise, you never understand
how bad it was and why you have to take all the effort to do OOP
breakdown before you start coding.

	Walt Howard
 	


	

Re: C/C++ is the best teaching language??!?

[Tom Valesky]

Actually, I'm sort of hoping that Java will catch on as a teaching
language. It's a lot more forgiving for first-time programmers than either
C or C++ (in particular, most people starting out in C seem to get hung up
on pointers and pointer arithmetic, which doesn't exist in Java), it
includes support for advanced features such as multi-threading,
distributed objects, and networking in the standard distribution, and it's
available on lots and lots of different platforms for free. Students in a
CS curriculum need to learn about pointers at some point, but most CS
curriculums (curricula? :-) ) have an architecture and/or assembler course
somewhere in the core courses that could address this. Doug Lea has a more
in-depth discussion of this idea at:

http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/html/javaInCS.html

--
===========================================================================
		Tom Valesky   -- tvalesky@patriot.net 
		     http://www.patriot.net/users/tvalesky

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[W. Wesley Groleau x4923]

> 1.  Many developers have had difficulty in learning OOP, and Steve
> McConnell (in his book "Rapid Development") even goes so far as to
> say that OOP is too difficult for the average programmer to do.

OOP is difficult when OOP is defined and practiced by extremists in
a way that makes it difficult.  This is diametrically opposed to the
truth that OOP is often (NOT always) a natural way of viewing things.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS                  Tool-smith Wanna-be
                    wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com

Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked!  All disk space
on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or 
the United States government.  Using email to store YOUR advertising 
on them is trespassing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Adam Beneschan]

Walt Howard wrote:

>         I think OOP is the terminal paradigm. It is like the wheel.
> We're there. We've arrived at the proper way to build software.
> We may make some minor adjustments in the future but the paradigm
> itself will be our computing core for hundreds, if not thousands
> of years. But that's just speculation of course.

Let me guess . . . Was your great-great-grandfather the one who
suggested, in the 19th century, that the Patent Office should be
closed because "Everything that could possibly be invented has already
been invented"?

                                -- Adam

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Heribert Slama]

On 6 Aug 1997 09:03:07 -0400, in comp.software-eng,
dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:

><<>         What I'm saying is, you can write a Prolog interpreter, a
>> Smalltalk interpreter, a Fortan Compiler etc etc etc in C! But
>> you can't do the reverse. ....
>>......
>
>Complete nonsense of course, the reverse is perfectly easy to do, ...
>......
Harsh words, but you're right. Only, I would've  said "can be done"
instead of "is perfectly easy to do".
>I guess the writer is someone who only knows C, and cannot imagine
>that any other language could possibly be interesting (actually C
>is NOT a particularly good choice for writing a compiler, the last
>full compiler I wrote, not counting GNAT written in Ada 95, weas
>written entirely in COBOL, and I found it a much more pleasant
>language for compiler writing than C.

Oh, if you could've seen my eyes popping out! I even shouted
_nonsense_ (or was it #+%%&**# ?). Good, you couldn't hear that.
Instead let me ask you 2 questions:

1. what was the language to be compiled?
2. which version of COBOL did you use?

I had my latest contact with COBOL about 3 years ago. It was COBOL-II
on an IBM mainframe; this version still lacked the following features
available in C, PL/I, ALGOL, MODULA-2 (Pascal) and even BASIC:

- Internal subroutines with a parameter-passing mechansim, i.e.
subroutines defined in the same source module which could be CALLed in
the same way as external subroutines.
(Well, parameter passing (by value only) can be emulated by moving
data to and from work fields. I would hate to write so many lines of
code.)

- Pointers and storage management to build complex and highly variable
data structures.
(Well, a big table of characters/integers could emulate a heap and its
indexes be used as pointers. Instead of dynamic structures one could
often use sufficiently big static ones. I wouldn't take that path.)

- No stack ("automatic") variables, therefore no recursive calls, not
even indirect ones. Most programming languages contain nested
constructs (data definitions, expressions etc.). The use of recursive
procedures within the compiler is a quite natural approach. Are there
ways around it? Or, can you somehow emulate a recursive call in COBOL?
I'm not an expert in this field. But still, I would expect the
solution to be tedious for the programmer.

All in all, I would never choose COBOL (as_I_know_it)  to write a
compiler. Maybe your COBOL is much more adavanced than the
run-of-the-mill COBOL used on mainframes for commercial applications?
Then I would say: Yes, it's an option (and a matter of taste).

Bye
	-Heribert

---
Heribert Slama <hslama@datacomm.ch>
Systems programmer
Muttenz, Switzerland

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[Jeff Brown]

>	The main hurdle I've found is that they mostly don't
>understand why encapsulation is a good thing.

IMHO if you don't understand modelling, you won't understand OOP

Re: I use Eiffel! and other "strange tongues"!

[quadrafeline]

>         I mean really, 20% of programmers I've know don't even
> understand how to break a program into functions! How many 800
> line main()s have you seen? I've seen plenty. There is no way
> that a function impaired programmer is going to grasp OOP which
> is the next level up.

OOP "is the next level up"? I don't know about you, but I have seen
some truly ghastly OOP code in my time...might be the answer to 
some problems, but not all, in my experience...