rlw@well.UUCP (Bob Weissman) (03/16/86)
Has anyone evaluated -- or actually USED -- both C++ and Objective-C from standpoints of ease of programming, clarity of code, and speed of execution? Which wins? -- Bob Weissman G.WEISSMAN@SU-SCORE.ARPA ...!well!rlw
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (03/17/86)
In article <780@well.UUCP> rlw@well.UUCP (Bob Weissman) writes: >Has anyone evaluated -- or actually USED -- both C++ and Objective-C >from standpoints of ease of programming, clarity of code, and speed >of execution? Which wins? > What is "Objective-C"? Pointer to book, reference manual, or article, please. I am presently reading the C++ book and it would be an ideal time for me to make at least vicarious comparisons. -- Herb Kanner McDonnell Douglas (TYMNET) ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
keith@cecil.UUCP (keith gorlen) (03/19/86)
>>Has anyone evaluated -- or actually USED -- both C++ and Objective-C >>from standpoints of ease of programming, clarity of code, and speed >>of execution? Which wins? >> I have evaluated Objective-C by attending one of their technical seminars, and I have purchased and studied the Objective-C Reference Manual, but I have not actually USED Objective-C. I have used C++ extensively, however. In my opinion, C++ POTENTIALLY wins by a mile on all counts. I say potentially because Objective-C includes a Smalltalk-80 -like class library in addition to a pre-processor. C++ provides only the tools for implementing a similar library, which I know from personal experience to be non-trivial. In a comparison between apples and apples, i.e., Objective-C vs. C++ and my Object-Oriented Program Support (OOPS) class library, the latter wins on ease of programming and clarity of code, and should also win on speed because of C++ inline functions and more efficient virtual function calls. The OOPS class library is in the public domain, but I have a considerable amount of work left to do on the documentation before it will be in useable form. >What is "Objective-C"? Pointer to book, reference manual, or article, >please. I am presently reading the C++ book and it would be an ideal >time for me to make at least vicarious comparisons. I don't have their materials handy, but the information you would like can be obtained from Productivity Products, Inc., Sandy Hook CT. I would also recommend their seminars. -- --- Keith Gorlen Computer Systems Laboratory Division of Computer Research and Technology National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD 20892 phone: (301) 496-5363 uucp: {decvax!}seismo!elsie!cecil!keith
larry@JPL-VLSI.ARPA (03/21/86)
Tom Mackey of Burroughs Distributed Systems Group in Boulder recently passed
along a one-pager from Gary Walker, a DSG manager. The conclusion was that
C++ won out in ease of use, development time, execution speed, code & data
size, and maintainability. Another benefit that others have mentioned is
that C++ will compile straight C programs with little or no changes needed.
One thing that Stroustrup's book hasn't cleared up for me is:
HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE C++? (I DON'T like C-inc; too close to Sink. And Isn't
C-Plus taken?)
Larry @ jpl-vlsi.arparbj@icst-cmr.ARPA (Root Boy Jim) (03/21/86)
From: larry@jpl-vlsi.arpa Subject: C++ vs. Objective-C To: info-c@BRL.ARPA Status: RO One thing that Stroustrup's book hasn't cleared up for me is: HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE C++? (I DON'T like C-inc; too close to Sink. And Isn't C-Plus taken?) Larry @ jpl-vlsi.arpa I pronounce it `see-plus-plus'. How about `see-bump?' What's a UNIX programmer's favorite song? `cc rider.c' :-)
dm@BBN-VAX.ARPA (03/23/86)
How is C++ pronounced? Stroustroup, in the introduction to his book on C++, suggests that one see the appendix to Orwell's 1984 for a more negative analysis of the name of the program, which leads me to believe it is called C-double-plus, as in double-plus-good.
asw@rlvd.UUCP (Antony Williams) (03/25/86)
In article <60@cecil.UUCP> keith@cecil.UUCP writes: > In a comparison between >apples and apples, i.e., Objective-C vs. C++ and my Object-Oriented >Program Support (OOPS) class library, the latter wins on ease of >programming and clarity of code, and should also win on speed because of >C++ inline functions and more efficient virtual function calls. > >The OOPS class library is in the public domain, but I have a considerable >amount of work left to do on the documentation before it will be in >useable form. > How about posting your library to mod.sources, with a pointer in this newsgroup, when you are happy with it? I for one would appreciate it. Any other votes? -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Williams |Informatics Division UK JANET: asw@uk.ac.rl.vd |Rutherford Appleton Lab Usenet: {... | mcvax}!ukc!rlvd!asw |Chilton, Didcot ARPAnet: asw%rl.vd@ucl-cs.arpa |Oxon OX11 0QX, UK