From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c78177ec2e61f4ac X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: C++ usage (was Re: ada and robots) Date: 1997/06/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 252064353 References: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 20 Jun 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote: > In article Brian Rogoff 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