Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: comparing object-oriented platforms
From: Des.Kenny@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:49:53 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <23741@alice.att.com> garry@alice.UUCP () writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.024059.25761@actrix.gen.nz> Des.Kenny@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>    In article <-t!p#_a.nagle@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>    > mwu@orion.oac.uci.edu (Matt Wu) writes:
>    > >I'm currently evaluating several object-oriented development platforms
>    > >and I was wondering if any of you would like to share your opinions on
>    > >platforms that you prefer or know about.  It'd be especially useful to hear
>    > >comparisons between different platforms (for instance, Eiffel v. Smalltalk).
>    > 
>    >       The language situation is roughly as follows:
> 
>    > 	Eiffel		Limited interest - one or two compilers, one book.
>    > 			Less used than Smalltalk, C++, Ada, or Modula-2.
>                           
>                           Correction: two books:
> 
> [ Many lines of Eiffel cheerleading,
>   including lots of interesting technical aspects, deleted ]					
  
  We seem to have some confusion here between what you consider
  interesting technical aspects and cheerleading.

> 
> You know, up to this point, you were doing great.  I found your
> discussion of the various benefits of Eiffel very interesting.
> I was even interested in finding out more.

  Now be serious. You are not so easily put off surely. What
  such fragile curiousity? I am rather skeptical about this as you can 
  gather. If a system is worth looking at then look. Don't let me sway
  you one way or the other look for yourself. If you have not looked at 
  Eiffel and it has been around since 1986 where do you hide? There
  must be some very deep holes at AT&T.

 
> 
> Then you lay the following crap on me.  My eyes glaze over, and I have
> the same reaction I get to TV "info-mercials" and televangelists.
> I tune out.  Many of the "discussions" of C++ vs. Eiffel I've seen
> in the past showed the same kind of wild-eyed enthusiasm for Eiffel,
> mixed with disdain for the lowly cretins who would debase themselves
> by using C++.  Now, maybe I should be impressed that Eiffel can
> generate that kind of enthusiasm, but zealots scare me, and my first 
> instinct is to stop listening, and to dismiss the technical arguments
> as more of the same.

  I reiterate this is merely my own opinion. Maybe I am right maybe I
  am not. So go look for yourself. I can only state my impressions
  you have to make up your own mind. But you have first to drag it over
  the Eiffel manuals and a real Eiffel system, talk to some Eiffel users,
  get the real pros and cons.

  Don't tell me there are no Eiffel systems at AT&T! If nothing else
  you should have one to see what the competition is up to.
  This is basic marketing not even a technical issue.

  So go look at it, criticise the hell out of it if you like but at least
  do it on the basis of some real facts. I Would be delighted to see some
  really enlightened criticism of Eiffel.
 
  No system is perfect it is all
  relative. So I hope we can look forward to your critical comments on Eiffel
  when you have had a serious look at the documentation and the system.
  I suggest you look at ISE's version for now. Other versions are not as
  advanced yet.


> 
>      			So Eiffel is not yet as widespread as C++
>    			but then how many people using a C++ compiler
>    			are really doing OO?
> 
> Quite a few of us, actually.  Although perhaps our level of OO-enlightenment
> is not up to your exalted standards, Oh Blessed One.
> 
     

  So there are some people using only the OO capabilities of C++.
  Perhaps. My point is that C++ is often promoted as being easy to learn if
  you already know C. There have been several people that have documented that
  in general it is harder to teach experienced C programmers to unlearn
  C so that they can learn only the OO capabilities of C++. They have found
  that it is often easier to teach people the OO extensions of C++ and to
  think in an OO way if they are not experienced C programmers.
  
  So there seems to be a contradiction going on here. It seems that
  the marketing people promoting C++ are not aware of this contradiction,
  because they still push this argument.
  
 

>    			C++ compilers may be better for
>    			died in the wool C programmers who are scared to
>    			venture to far from the nice little C hole they have
>    			dug theselves.
> 
> Yeah, I just spend all day cringing in my office, uh, hole, praying
> I will never have to learn anything or have an original thought again.
> Pssst.  Don't tell my management.
> 
  So there are some exceptions. Congratulations! You appear to be an original
  thinker. So we can expect to see some factual evaluations of Eiffel and 
  any other OO systems you are studying at the moment, as well as C++ of
  course. I look forward to this publication.

> 			But C++ is a poor compromise at best.
>    			It is not real OO.
> 
> Perhaps by your definition. Many disagree.

  So Let us be more technically specific. I await your criticisms of
  Eiffel and any other OO systems with anticipation.

> 
> 			Even authors who work at AT&T
>    			have documented, several times, how difficult it is
>    			to teach the best C programmers to use the OO 
>    			extensions of C++.
> 
> Now, how do you suppose they slipped that past the AT&T Thought Police?
  
  Far be it for me to say. "The truth will out", occasionally.

> 
> 			OO thinking is very very different
>    			from procedural thinking. And it is just human nature
>    			to slip to the bad old ways.
>    
> Yeah, us C++ folks is definately too stoopid to learn nuthin' new.

  We shall see what your evaluation of Eiffel and other OO systems
  tells us. 

> 
>    			So when you see figure of enormous numbers of C++
>    			licenses. Think what this really means in OO terms
>    			rather that C terms.
> 
> It means that a great many people are reaping the benefits of OOP.

  It also means that these figures are totally unreliable. Everyone
  who wants a better C compiler will probably upgrade to C++.
  This tells us absolutely nothing about who is really using the 
  OO capabilities of C++, and even less about who is EXCLUSIVELY
  using the OO capabilities of C++, such as they are.

> 
>    			My advice is not to be a sheep. Sheep get slaughtered
>    			in the end. 
>    
>    			Look at the various platforms and judge for yourself.
>    			Decide what you need that suits you. Don't go on the
>    			number of licenses!
> 
> Agreed.  That is what the original poster is trying to do.
> If we went by the number of licences, we'd all be using COBOL.

  Numbers of licenses is a marketing argument used by many C++ vendors
  to promote C++.


  So we look forward to your criticisms of Eiffel and whatever else
  you like.
 
> --Des Kenny
    Objective Methods
Xref: sparky comp.object:3868 comp.software-eng:3613