NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c++-part1/7206

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 3.6 KB

Path: goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
Date: 22 Feb 1996 15:47:42 +1100
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Message-ID: <4ggshe$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4etcmm$[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]> <4gad29$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #0 (NOV)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>With regards to maintenance, there's many people out there who consider
>C/C++ a Write only language.

[e-mail] (Pete Becker) writes:
>How many of the people who say this have actually used C++ enough to
>understand it?

(1) Almost any programming language is going to be called "write-only" by
    people who have not worked with it for a bit.

(2) "Notation as a tool of thought": there are some really brilliant notations
    which can actually help you think more clearly about some things.  APL is
    a case in point:  I have found it a very powerful notation for a small
    class of problems; within that class trying to keep it simple often led
    me to a specification with fewer "rough edges".  The notation could be
    abused; it often was abused; and it was limited.  Mathematical notation
    in general can be concise, verbose, revealing, hopelessly obscure.  You
    have to combine even the best notation with a sense of elegance and some
    consideration for your readers.

(3) Precisely because they are popular, C and C++ are used by a lot of
    programmers who shouldn't be allowed near a keyboard without a helmet
    and padded knees.  There is a lot of extremely bad C and C++ code.
    It is easy for a language to get a bad reputation when nearly every
    book you see has dreadful code in it.

(4) C++ in particular has been changing very rapidly.  It seems as if every
    time I turn around there is a new keyword.  I was looking at some code
    fragments today in a book; they were full of things like
    void HelpIndex () (RTMessage) = [CM_FIRST+CM_HelpIndex];
    I've used three C++ compilers, read every book with "Stroustrup" on it,
    and keep on browsing through the draft standard, and haven't the foggiest
    notion what this is supposed to do.  If a few keywords had been used
    instead of punctuation marks, I might have been able to figure it out...
    Conversely, there's a program I was given in 1988, written in C++, that
    I haven't been able to compile for years, so today's _compilers_ think
    it isn't "readable" (sad smiley).

(5) Let's be clear about the goals and accomplishments of C++.
    It was designed to make it easy for skilled programmers to WRITE large
    object-oriented programs.  It is obvious to any fair observer that it
    has accomplished these goals.  It was _not_ designed with readability,
    formal verification, or protecting idiots from themselves in mind.

(6) In the world of software engineering, easy to read is better than easy
    to write, even Homer nods to protecting idiots like me from ourselves
    is thought to be important, and some level of verifiability is thought
    to be a Good Thing.  (Come to think of it, the way Alphard 'form's
    were annotated should carry over nicely to C++ classes, so how come
    such annotations are so rare in the code I've seen?)

(7) Intentionally left blank.
--
Election time; but how to get Labor _out_ without letting Liberal _in_?
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~ok; RMIT Comp.Sci.