From: cshaver@informix.com (Craig Shaver)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: feedback wanted on appropriate OOPL
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:15:27 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Dec29.230713.9401@microsoft.com> jimad@microsoft.com (Jim Adcock) writes:

.....

>
>I am expected to provide you with concreate evidence about an
>interview candidate ???  The kinds of problems I'm talking about

No.

>are people who don't know the difference between pointers and
>references and pass-by-value, don't understand const, don't know 
>how to program without GC, can't get pointers right, don't get 
>their Ctors and Dtors right, who want to do everything on the heap, etc....

Sounds like these people lied to you.  But, what about style?  You are
talking about language implementation details.  I have seen your postings
for several years Jim, and I think you have been too hung up on the 
particulars of the language rather than real world use of the
language.  We may have some basic semantic differences rather than
philosophic differences.  By style I mean problem solving approaches.
I believe you are talking about language features and their use.
IMHO this is the achilles heel of C++.  The features get in the 
way of problem solving.  There are too many details to keep track of.

Would anyone care to comment on style differences between C++ and
Smalltalk?  I have seen postings that claim you must approach
design differently using C++ rather than Smalltalk.  I happen to
believe that Smalltalk has some good things that the C++ community
should look at.  


>I have done so many times and will again.  Consider, for example one
>measure, namely the number of references in the Computer Select Database
>in 1992 of articles from the major computer magazines.  Number of
>references to various languages we have been discussing:
>
>C			39498
>C++		 8148
>COBOL		 6179
>Smalltalk	  841
>
>Same source, number of software products listed referencing each 
>above language:
>
>C			 9748
>COBOL		 3222
>C++		  572
>Smalltalk	   39
>
>If you look at a large number of languages over time, you see C/C++
>gaining [C++ strongly] and leading the pack by a large margin.  Then
>comes a middle grouping of a large number of historical languages --

I see a lot of talk and not a lot of use.  I think there is something
driving the programmers to push managements into C++ projects -- money!
Most job advertising now requires c/c++ versus just c.  Most of these
jobs will not actually be doing any c++, but they want it just in case.
This has been done by HR people who poll the tech xxx's for what's hot
and put it in the ad.  The tech xxx's see the ads and buy books on
c++ just to cover their ass.  In the first flush of a new religion
they push c++ internally.  Management stonewalls but HR puts it in
the ads just in case.  And so on.  

The projects that do get started in C++ may never make it out the
door.  We do not hear too much about the failures.  I think we will
hear about something soon from Borland.  I think these guys really
bit it big.

>pascal, fortran, cobol, ... then bringing up the rear is a very large
>number of "esoterica" languages that never seem to reach critical
>mass for some reason or another -- typically because they never get
>even one stable efficient implementation on even one popular machine.
>
Smalltalk is on the verge of 'esoterica' I admit.  It is bloated and
inefficient.
>
>Other simple "measures" are to go to a good computer book store and
>count the number of texts available for different languages.  C++
>has 100+ texts in print, for example.
>
See above comments.

.... deleted ....

-- 
Craig Shaver  (cshaver@informix.com for now) (415)390-0654 (415)926-6407
Productivity Group POB 60458 Sunnyvale, CA  94088
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++