Re: why learn C?

[<adaworks@sbcglobal.net>]

"Markus E Leypold" <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> 
wrote in message news:0fbqi9tncx.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de...
>
>
> The way Richard presents things distorts reality somewhat: He gives
> the impression that there is a number of peple out there, which know
> C++ and Ada equally well, start projects with an absolutely clean
> slate (no development environment, no code base on which to build, no
> corporate guide lines) and then -- with seeing eyes -- decide for C++
> and against Ada, but still expect completely error free software.
>
Good observation. Well-phrased and thoughtful.

I realize that few people know both languages well.   I also know that
projects rarely start with a clean slate.

There are certainly circumstances where C++ is the preferred option.
These usually are environments where everyone is already well-trained
and experienced in C++.    Moving to a new language should never
be taken lightly.   One reason C++ has been so successful is that it
is familiar with those who originally programmed in C.

I have counseled people to avoid new languages on many occasions.  On
one occasion, a three-star general asked me whether he should convert all
his Fortran code to Ada.  My answer was, No.   On another occasion, I
was asked about what to do about COBOL in a shop that had hundreds
of thousands of code in COBOL.  "Should we convert to Java?"  My answer
was again an emphatic No!

In my own experience, I have had the opportunity to program in many different
languages on a lot of different kinds of projects.   I have been doing this for
well over forty years.    I realize that every language has its good points and
bad points.   Some have more bad points than others.

When I look at C++, versus the alternatives, I see a language that should be
retired from service at the earliest opportunity.   It is dangerous, messy, and
error-prone.   It served its purpose for a while.  It was considered useful for
its alleged efficiency.   This issue is largely moot.   At present, C++ is 
nothing
more than an object-oriented universal Assembler.   From time to time it is
still useful.  However, newer languages have come into existence and C++ is
something of a buggy-whip equivalent.

If we are to move the profession forward to a more engineering discipline, the
buggy-whip needs to be replaced with more appropiate tools.

Functional languages such as OCAML are showing their advantages, where
they are used.   Eiffel continues to be an excellent alternative when one needs
an OOP language with a bit more dependabilty.   And Ada continues to evolve
well, even though it still needs more evolution in subsequent iterations.  C++,
on the other hand, seems to be evolving new features with the principle intent
of fixing things in the existing language that are broken.    With all the 
better
alternatives available, I can only wonder why anyone would deliberately
choose C++.

Of particular concern, for me, is the nitwits who have chosen C++ over Ada
for military weapon systems.   This is absolutely horrible.   I deal regularly 
with
the young military personnel who are going to have to rely on the software
in those systems, and it frightens me that we are sending them into combat
with equipment programmed in language that is inherently error-prone.

Richard Riehle