From: garry@alice.att.com (garry hodgson)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: comparing object-oriented platforms
Summary: give me  break
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:45:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23741
Reply-To: garry@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T, Bell Labs

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 ]					

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.

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.

     			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.

   			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.

			But C++ is a poor compromise at best.
   			It is not real OO.

Perhaps by your definition. Many disagree.

			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?

			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.

   			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.

   			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.

-- 
Garry Hodgson			A slow winter day
AT&T Bell Labs			A night like forever
garry@alice.att.com		Sink like a stone
att!alice!garry			Float like a feather
Newsgroups: comp.object