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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f4fd2,23202754c9ce78dd X-Google-Attributes: gidf4fd2,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-13 04:23:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Kevin McFarlane" Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: True faiths ( was Re: The true faith ) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:20:29 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <%njZ7.279$iR.150960@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <3c36fbc5_10@news.newsgroups.com> <4idg3u40ermnp682n6igc5gudp7hajkea9@4ax.com> <76be8851.0201101909.9db0718@posting.google.com> <9jtu3u8cq92b05j47uat3412tok6hqu1ki@4ax.com> <3C3F8689.377A9F0F@brising.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:24161 comp.lang.ada:18856 comp.lang.eiffel:5384 comp.lang.smalltalk:17862 Date: 2002-01-13T12:20:29+00:00 List-Id: "Steven T Abell" wrote in message news:3C3F8689.377A9F0F@brising.com... > israel r t wrote: > > This seems to be typical of most marginal communities. > > I have seen variants of the argument "substance will eventually win > > " in the smalltalk, ada, eiffel, os2 and sgi communities. > > It seems improbable that every marginalised language is going to win. > > > > Lisp, Ada , Eiffel and Smalltalk are all excellent languages, far > > superior to the Gang of Three ( Java, C++ , C ). > > > > Yet, if Kent is right, they may have all been " rejected ... for > > substantial reasons and not just superficial ones." > > > > Will we all end up like the Moonies , convinced that our faith is the > > One True Faith while the rest of the world moves on ? > > I have not done Ada or Eiffel, > have done Smalltalk and Lisp, > used to teach Smalltalk. > > I think the reason is mindshare, > which unfortunately looks pretty relevant to a hiring manager. > > Not very many people can use these languages well. > It's true that two or three people who can use them well > can outproduce a whole roomful of very competent C/C++/Java guys. > But a manager is highly influenced by the Truck Effect: > if one of your exotic wonderboys goes away for any reason, > he can be very hard to replace. > Furthermore, the loss of one of these > is equivalent to the loss of a whole team of C/C++/Java guys. > Yes, I know the time/cost tradeoffs, > but most managers don't want to hear the facts on this issue, > they just want to know if they can hire someone off the street, > and street people don't do Smalltalk. > > I'm doing C++ right now, > and I'm painfully aware of just how unproductive this thing is. > But my client believes that I can be replaced if I go splat, > and that belief helps them get through the day. > Underneath it all, > my work is informed by my Smalltalk and Lisp experience > in ways that your average C/C++/Java guy just doesn't get, > and my client understands that I know something they don't. > > I would love to be able to do Smalltalk all day long. > I would hate to go through life with the outlook of a C guy. > It's hard, but I try to be content, > and I go home and work on learning APL. > For those of us who actually have to produce things, > it's what you feed your brain that's relevant, > and C and its children are not enough. > > Steve > -- > Steven T Abell > Software Designer > http://www.brising.com > > In software, nothing is more concrete than a good abstraction. I think Steve is right. I too am primarily a C++ developer but would like to be using langages such as Eiffel, which I've read a lot about but not used. However, I'm constrained by learning what I have to learn to make a living and what can be leveraged off of C++. So things like C# and ASP are worth my while investing in and Eiffel isn't - for now, at any rate. I think that it is good for programmers to be familiar with more than one language, even if only cursorily. My C++ has improved and is improving (hopefully) by being informed by important concepts from Eiffel and from more general reading on software engineering. It's always going to be hard for something new to get a look in. There is, of course, the economic reason that, for example, C/C++ guys are two a penny but Eiffel and Smalltalk guys aren't. That's why you often need some kind of killer application or killer technology area to leverage off of. Eiffel, for example, may get a boost from .Net, especially as its offering a few things that the other languages don't. But I fear it's not being marketed very well at the moment. Another barrier to overcome is programmers themselves. It's difficult enough to get C programmers to buy into OO and to get C++ programmers to use the techniques that exist to write safer, more maintainable code. This may partly be due to the complexity of C++ but I also think it's just boneheadedness (e.g., the attitude "I've always used sprintf why try anything different?") In my last job, a difficult-to-fine damaged memory problem was caused by an incorrectly coded sprintf. This would not have been caused by using the more modern C++ alternatives. But a dyed-in-the-wool C programmer would probably just say that programmers should be competent enough not to make mistakes. However, having said this, the minority languages would probably help their case better by not dogmatically dismissing everything else but by being more constructive. Not everything in C/C++ is bad.