Re: ada and robots

Re: ada and robots

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970618125216.11737B-100000@shellx.best.com> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:

> PS: I bought that book when it came out, in 1991. I was trying to use it 
> with SGI's version of CFront 3.0. Templates, nested classes (which are not 
> as useful as Java's inner classes) and exceptions were unusable then, and 
> still so several years thereafter. 

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.

/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: ada and robots

[Brian Rogoff]

On 19 Jun 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote:
> > PS: I bought that book when it came out, in 1991. I was trying to use it 
> > with SGI's version of CFront 3.0. Templates, nested classes (which are not 
> > as useful as Java's inner classes) and exceptions were unusable then, and 
> > still so several years thereafter. 
> 
> 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.  Certainly if I had my druthers, there would be little new C++
written and lots of new Ada (which I think is your point), but even in that 
better world there would be C++ written in the maintenance of existing
code. There is also a fairly large pool of C++ programmers out there, and a 
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".  

IMO, its really a question of degree only. All computer languages
fundamentally suck. I just happen to find Ada's flaws far more palatable 
for those programming tasks for which C, C++, and Fortran are often used.   

-- Brian

Re: ada and robots

[Jon S Anthony]

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.


> 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".


> 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.


> 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.


/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: ada and robots

[John G. Volan]

Brian Rogoff wrote:
> 
> On 19 Jun 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote:
> > 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*
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If this is really the case, then this is a serious problem with C++. 
The lack of a commonly-agreed upon standard that completely defines the
semantics of C++ as a _single_ language, with all available compilers
reliably implementing all of its features in comparable and compatible
ways, must be viewed as a major strike against it. (To be fair, such a
standard _is_ in the works, but the irony is that historians may
actually take the date of the final ISO vote of approval for the C++
standard as the official date of C++'s death as a fad, and its
replacement by the next fad, Java.) :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature 
  (Name       => "John G. Volan",
   Employer   => "Texas Instruments Advanced C3I Systems, San Jose, CA",
   Work_Email => "jvolan@ti.com",
   Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com",
   Slogan     => "Ada95: World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL",
   Disclaimer => "My employer never defined these opinions, so using" & 
                 "them would be totally erroneous ... or is that"     &
                 "just nondeterministic behavior now? :-) ");
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Brian Rogoff]

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

Re: ada and robots

[Robert Dewar]

Brian said

<<C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages* which will be with us for
a long time.  Certainly if I had my druthers, there would be little new C++
<<



I don't understand the "family of languages" reference here.

Re: ada and robots

[Brian Rogoff]

On 23 Jun 1997, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Brian said
> 
> <<C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages* which will be with us for
> a long time.  Certainly if I had my druthers, there would be little new C++
> <<
> 
> I don't understand the "family of languages" reference here.

Don't read too much into it. It is just a quip about the elusive nature 
of the meaning of "C++", inspired by years of working with it. I found 
that most C++ code I saw (late 80s and early 90s) really would have been 
best described as VC++, GNU C++, Zortech C++, etc, and these were all 
changing with each release (but not getting closer to each other). 

Yeah, you could argue that the same is true of Ada to some degree, but 
(as Jon pointed out) the quantitative difference is very great. Many 
articles by C++ cognoscenti in that time frame cautioned against the use 
of templates and exceptions in portable code, for example. 

-- Brian

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

[Brian Rogoff]

On 24 Jun 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote:
> 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.

In other words, people who had the choice admit that they made what they 
thought (before they committed) was the wrong choice? 

I'd be curious about the management/economic issues you cite. The more ammo
the better.
 
> > 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...

Understandable that they might feel that way, as programming in Lisp is 
far different from programing in Ada. Lisp environments tend to really 
support an exploratory style of programming (hacking ;-) which can be 
quite useful at times. 

OCAML, which is a member of the ML family of languages, is an impure  
functional language, like Scheme, which is statically typed, has a module 
system supporting separate compilation, and an object system. Like SML, 
you don't have to explicitly type variables, as the compilers do type 
inference. For long lived code, I'm not so sure this is good, since
explicit types provide documentation for dumber programmers like me. OTOH, 
combined with an interpreter, it feels like an Ada-esque Lisp with its 
static typing. See http://pauillac.inria.fr/ocaml/ for details. 

No, I am not advocating that anyone drop Ada and rush to OCAML or SML
(but you can certainly think about chucking some of those bogus untyped 
scripting languages you use :-) 

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

Yes. I have talked to members of several commercial projects which use 
Perl for large scale programming. One of them was switching to Java because 
the Perl code had become unmaintainable in their opinion.  

-- Brian

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

[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

Re: C++ Family of Languages [was :ada and robots]

[Alan Brain]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Brian said
> 
> <<C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages* which will be with us for
> a long time.  Certainly if I had my druthers, there would be little new C++
> <<
> 
> I don't understand the "family of languages" reference here.

Anyone who's tried porting large amounts of code in C++ will know what's
meant.

Case in point: I'm currently porting a large quantity of CodeWarrior C++
to VisualC++ 5.0. One example:

for (int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i ++)
{
 //some statements
}
for (int i = 0 ; i < 20 ; i ++)
{
 //some more statements
}

On CodeWarrior, fine. But Visual C++ 5 barfs at the re-definition of the
(local) loop variable i. Yes, CodeWarrior (and I believe the draft ANSI
standard) has i being local within the loop, whereas VC++5 has strictly
only things within {} being local. OTOH for CodeWarrior 10(?) I need to

#include <bool.h>

Whereas VC++5 (and the ANSI draft) caters for type BOOLEAN, so barfs if
you include it. For strings, of course, I need to

#include <string>

for both, but also, for CWarrior I can then use

string ThisString;

whereas in VC++5 I need to

typedef std::basic_string<char> string  

or similar before I can declare a variable of type string. This isn't
too bad: it's just an instantiation of a generic string for characters.
Too bad use of templates in C++ is often considered Highly Advanced. 

These are not "old" compilers. They are at least industry standard, and
are probably ahead of the average. Every day, I miss Ada-83 more and
more and more... Except for Thursdays, when I teach Ada at ADFA.

I took the liberty of X-posting to comp.lang.c++ so you might get a few
more remarks on this thread.

-- 
aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
| Alan & Carmel Brain|      xxxxx       Improve his shining tail?
| Canberra Australia |  xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
100026.2014 compuserve o OO*O^^^^O*OO o oo     oo oo     oo  
                    By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale
See http://www.z-world.com/graphics/z/master/8856.gif for picture

Re: ada and robots

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

"John G. Volan" <johnvolan@sprintmail.com> writes:
>Brian Rogoff wrote:
>> C++ is a very widely used *family-of-languages*

>If this is really the case, then this is a serious problem with C++. 

It is really the case.  For example, the <string> header, providing
C++'s equivalent of Ada.Strings.Unbounded (more or less), has been
in the draft standard since at least April 1995.  Of the two compilers
I have here, one supports it and one doesn't.  When I complained on
the net about this, the response from some C++ experts was "don't be
a whining idiot, use char*".  Of course, comparisons on 'char*' and
comparisons on 'string' do very different things...

In fairness to the compiler writers, C++ is an extremely complex language.
It's a pity neither of the compilers available to me supports 'namespace'
yet (which has also been in the draft standard since April 1995 at least),
but I'd much rather they got templates exactly right first.

-- 
Four policemen playing jazz on an up escalator in the railway station.
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.

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

[Will Rose]

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

No, it's not - it's a reasonable risk-aversive strategy.  They aren't
looking for an enormous success, but seek to avert major failure.  Since
"everybody uses C++" it must be useable, and since "everbody uses C++"
they won't be blamed for chosing it.  So "everybody uses C++".

(You can change C++ to 'Microsoft NT' in the above paragraph, and still
a correct statement.  The current popularity of Java is probably fashion,
a slightly different force, but in a year or two Java will probably also
be received wisdom.)

Will
cwr@crash.cts.com

Re: C++ Family of Languages [was :ada and robots]

[Robert Dewar]

Alan said

<<Anyone who's tried porting large amounts of code in C++ will know what's
meant.
>>

OK, so you meant to say family of dialects, rather than family of languages,
and to be fair, this is probably a transitional phenomenon that will 
gradually disappear when the C++ standard appears.
\x1adp

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

[David Weller]

In article <867219575.393164@optional.cts.com>, Will Rose <cwr@cts.com> wrote:
>looking for an enormous success, but seek to avert major failure.  Since
>"everybody uses C++" it must be useable, and since "everbody uses C++"
>they won't be blamed for chosing it.  So "everybody uses C++".
>

Past: Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM [Fortran|COBOL|etc.]

Present: Nobody ever gets fired for choosing Microsoft [C++|Java|etc.]

The melody's the same,
but the lyrics keep changing :-)

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

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970624211546.29470A-100000@shellx.best.com> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:

> > 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.
> 
> In other words, people who had the choice admit that they made what they 
> thought (before they committed) was the wrong choice? 

That is correct.  But, as someone else pointed out, they would not say
that outright except among themselves.


> I'd be curious about the management/economic issues you cite. The
> more ammo the better.

Simply this: it was _clear_ that a) things would be done better and
cheaper if X were used _and_ b) that there would be happier and more
enthusiastic employees as they wanted to use X, understood why X would
make their life better, knew X (more did than not), and liked X.


> Understandable that they might feel that way, as programming in Lisp is 
> far different from programing in Ada. Lisp environments tend to really 
> support an exploratory style of programming (hacking ;-) which can be 
> quite useful at times. 

Exactly.  We use it here for much of our exploratory proof of concept
and proto-type work.


> OCAML, which is a member of the ML family of languages, is an impure  
> functional language, like Scheme, which is statically typed, has a module 
> system supporting separate compilation, and an object system. Like SML, 
> you don't have to explicitly type variables, as the compilers do type 
> inference. For long lived code, I'm not so sure this is good, since
> explicit types provide documentation for dumber programmers like me. OTOH, 
> combined with an interpreter, it feels like an Ada-esque Lisp with its 
> static typing. See http://pauillac.inria.fr/ocaml/ for details. 

Kewl.  I'll check it out.  Thanks for the tip.


> > Well, OK you got me.  Still, in general, people wouldn't actually
> > suggest using Perl for any sort of large scale programming - would
> > they??
> 
> Yes. I have talked to members of several commercial projects which use 
> Perl for large scale programming. One of them was switching to Java because 
> the Perl code had become unmaintainable in their opinion.  

And people wonder why software is in such an execrable state.
Criminey...

/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