Re: C++ usage (was Re: ada and robots)

[jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970623110733.2308B-100000@shellx.best.com> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:

> > > large number of projects cranking out code. So there probably is a
> > > use for C++ qua C++, even if we could make technical arguments that
> > > Ada can do the job "better".
> > 
> > I don't mean just "technically".
> 
> I don't understand what you mean here.

Simply that there are even simple management/economic reasons why C++
is not a rational choice.  The really odd thing is that IME I've seen
people actually admit this was true (that an alternative would
actually make more sense all around), but then choose C++ anyway
"because that is what is being used in the industry".  That's
basically irrational.


> Sure. If I had my way, I'd never write another line of C++. I suppose 
> Eiffel and OCAML programmers might say the same thing about Ada ;-)

:-).  CL or ST more likely (actually I don't know OCAML - I presume it
is functional?)  OTOH, I know a number of Lisp types who don't view
Ada as something that sucks.  They wouldn't exactly jump at the chance
to program in it, but they see its merits.  C++ they simply disdain...


> > > I just happen to find Ada's flaws far more palatable for those
> > > programming tasks for which C, C++, and Fortran are often used.
> > 
> > I hear ya.  But, for me, the degree to which C++ sucks puts it in a
> > class of its own.
> 
> I have to say I mostly agree, though IMHO Perl comes close.

Well, OK you got me.  Still, in general, people wouldn't actually
suggest using Perl for any sort of large scale programming - would
they??

/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