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

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com>]

On 20 Jun 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote:
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970619163029.5827A-100000@shellx.best.com> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:
> > > It is rather amazing, isn't it.  BTW, I've completely given up on C++.
> > > I think C still has its uses, but C++?  I don't think so.
> > 
> > I do.
> > 
> > C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages* which will be with us for 
> > a long time.
> 
> Oh, it is _used_ all over the place (well, more or less - it's often
> difficult to glean whether it is just being used as a ANSI C sort of
> thing.)  I was talking about "uses" as in "the best thing to use here
> is C++".  This latter does not seem to have good rationale no matter
> what the situation: if it is simply C stuff - use C.  Numerical stuff
> - use Fortran.  If it is something needing flexible higher level
> capabilities, sophistication and lower level efficiencies - use Ada
> (or Eiffel).  Implemenations and availability are every bit as viable
> as those for C++.  Something even higher level - use Lisp or ST or
> some such.

My experience (which may not match yours) is that C++ is used in many 
organizations as an OO programming language, but that a subset of the 
"language" is used which is far smaller than draft ANSI/ISO C++, or 
even Lippman '91 or the "The C++ Programming Language, 2nd ed.". To be 
specific, I don't see templates, exceptions, namespaces, or RTTI being 
used much, but classes (and virtual members) and overloading are. Multiple 
inheritance is not used as much as in other languages (I've seen a
bunch of CLOS code and MI is used a lot). 
 
> > 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.

> > IMO, its really a question of degree only. All computer languages
> > fundamentally suck.
> 
> Right.  This I completely agree with.  However, a large enough
> quantitative gap gives a qualitative difference.

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 ;-)

> > 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.

-- Brian