Re: C++ Standardization (was: Once again,

[wardi@rsd.bel.alcatel.be (Ian Ward)]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5472 bytes --]


In article cs2@ratatosk.uio.no, tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no (Tarjei Jensen) writes:
>Considering the C++ track record to date I would be more worried if I had a few
>hundred thousand C++ sourcelines under maintenance than if they were in Ada.
>
>With Ada I would not expect any major upheavals. With C++ anything could happen.
>
>In the short term the risk of C++ could be view as small. In the long term I
>don't know. If I had large amounts of legacy C++ code I would be worried.
>
>
>Greetings,
>
> 
>-- 
>// Tarjei T. Jensen 
>//    tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no || fax +47 51664292  || voice +47 51 85 87 39
>//   Support you local rescue centre: GET LOST!
>// Working, but not speaking for the Norwegian Hydrographic Service.

I agree totally with this.

One argument against the thriving of C++....

In my opinion, there are a strong body of people out there who, these days
are striving to make reliable code, but who are, quite wisely from their
fiscal point of view, (if not for software engineering as a whole) wanting
to keep the same sort of syntax for their code as they always have. (They
recognise it. Tt is a lot easier to write say, down the page instead of 
across in English, with the english characters, than it is to have to get
used to looking at the Mandarin or Cantonese character set, at the same time.)

It is these people I think, (the ones interested in building a more capable
'C',) that initially were the driving force behind the C++ explosion. Most
of the other people that use it are just raving hackers, who really write
'C' under C++'s banner. I have looked at C++, quite a bit, in fact, though
obviously not enough to pass an interview. A lot of the things said about
it, I agree with - most of them about the big system building. It was not
a bad first step.

It is still a complex language though, very complex compared to Ada, at
least to look at. I am not sure what notorious "blow your leg off comment"
was exactly about, but I suspect that the originator of it recognised that
a lot of the flexibility of the language, most notably the ease of pointers,
still was going to cause havoc for the average programmer during the long
run of big system creation.

As a consequence of this, I think that the original people that caused the
C++ explosion will be the people that recognise advantages Java has over
C++, and will be the people who instigate that Java explosion. (I am sure
that Java is not flawless either, but I do not know enough about it yet
to give a serious opinion.)

This is a good thing, there are two distinct approaches to manufacture of,
well, anything. One is to think about the problem, a lot, and to design 
an effective solution. The other is to start work on it, and applying
fixes to it as the process develops. If we consider Ada to be
at one edge, designing out the errors before the project starts, and 
'C' to be at the other with its host of (absolutely necessary) tools,
then C++ and Java are in the middle. In my opinion, software engineers
are migrating across, the playing field, albeit in small steps.

Eventually, due to the pressure of the people who actually want to get
the bastard thing to work, all but the most specialised languages will
design out common human mistakes, and use the computer to check the
paperwork for the authors.

If I am right, then the C++ code out there at the moment will become the
most horrendous legacy. People have made one step away from 'C', I think
the next step will be a bit easier for them. The first step is always the
hardest.


One argument for the defence of Ada.

I don't know if anyone remembers, but there used to be this old television
programme called "Kung Fu", with David Carradine as "Caine".
In one of the episodes, Master Po (the blind guy) said to Caine that when
defending oneself against an attacker who wished to kill you, all you had
to do was survive. If you did this, he had failed.
In an additional piece of history, less fictitious, and less well known,
my Grandfather was in a field with my Dad (they wer both drillers,) when
the subject of the Berlin Wall, which was being laid at the time, came up.
"Nice as the theory is, communism is flawed," said my grandad, "no matter
how strong it is, if it isn't knocked over, it will collapse from within."
Now, I am sure he was thinking in terms of basic human greed, rather than
Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and, although the USSR outlived him by 13�
years, he was right.

The analogy here is that there are some things that C++ cannot do,
namely airborne software. Now I am sure someone will come up with 
cases where I am wrong, but I would rather walk than fly with aircraft
whose Bus Controller was written in the language. I am sure I am not
the only one. People who work in embedded avionics generally have an
entrirely different definition of the word "reliable" to other
programmers. Thankfully, the people who make the decisions, generally
agree with me.

Until something comes along which is better than Ada at this game,
(which neither 'C', C++ and I am sure Java, are not) then Ada WILL survive.
Additionally, the revamped Ada95 is now a damned good general purpose
language. More importantly it can be acquired for nothing. This fact, its
freeness, above all others will, I believe, be the making of it. As a
fringe language, it would not have originally been taken on by the free
software people had it been crap. 











---
Ian Ward's opinions only : wardi@rsd.bel.alcatel.be