tombre@crin.fr (Karl Tombre) (03/01/90)
In article <259@eiffel.UUCP> bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes: From <Ec.3251@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > Personally, it's the little things like this that make me > believe that everyone should ABANDON C and move on to C++(two others being > function prototyping and strong type checking). Waddya think? Wither C? How can the words ``strong type checking'' be applied to a language in which any variable may be cast to any type? In which you declare the type of a generic list element to be ``pointer to characters''? C++ only magnifies the problems of C, and it does not even have the excuses that can be invoked in the case of a 20-year old design such as C. [and so on] Am I the only one having regularly the following problem? I think Eiffel is a very good language (probably one of the best), I am quite impressed by its design. I also appreciate Bertrand Meyer's various technical and scientifical contributions in conferences and newsgroups. But from time to time, this attitude of his comes up and annoys me VERY MUCH : he seems to have difficulties accepting that there are other solutions for object-oriented programming, that other languages exist and are popular for various reasons. He especially tends to become "rabid" when speaking of C++. This leaves such a bad "taste in my mouth" that it tends to give me unjustly biased views of Mr. Meyer's product, i.e. Eiffel. That any "neutral" user gives his opinion about the merits or deficiencies of C++, Eiffel, Smalltalk, Cobol, BASIC or whatever is just fine. But shouldn't it be plain decency to restrain from commenting in such strong and passionnate terms about one's concurrents' products ? Especially for somebody wishing not to be a marketing person but to be known as an authority in OO languages and design ? I remember for instance reading some time ago, in the news, comments from either Brad Cox or Bjarne Stroustrup about the other's language; at no time did it have such a bad taste than the referenced article. Isn't it on the border of arrogance to believe that "I know the definite, final and only TRUTH about how an object-oriented language should be designed" ??? -- Karl Tombre - INRIA Lorraine / CRIN EMAIL : tombre@loria.crin.fr - POST : BP 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France
dan@charyb.COM (Dan Mick) (03/03/90)
In article <TOMBRE.90Mar1013132@weissenburger.crin.fr| tombre@crin.fr (Karl Tombre) writes: |In article <259@eiffel.UUCP| bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes: | From <Ec.3251@cs.psu.edu| by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): | | | Personally, it's the little things like this that make me | | believe that everyone should ABANDON C and move on to C++(two others being | | function prototyping and strong type checking). Waddya think? Wither C? | | How can the words ``strong type checking'' be applied to a language | in which any variable may be cast to any type? In which you declare the | type of a generic list element to be ``pointer to characters''? | | C++ only magnifies the problems of C, and it does not even have the | excuses that can be invoked in the case of a 20-year old design such as C. | [and so on] | |Am I the only one having regularly the following problem? No. |I think Eiffel is a very good language (probably one of the best), I |am quite impressed by its design. I also appreciate Bertrand Meyer's |various technical and scientifical contributions in conferences and |newsgroups. But from time to time, this attitude of his comes up and |annoys me VERY MUCH : he seems to have difficulties accepting that |there are other solutions for object-oriented programming, that other |languages exist and are popular for various reasons. He especially |tends to become "rabid" when speaking of C++. This leaves such a bad |"taste in my mouth" that it tends to give me unjustly biased views of |Mr. Meyer's product, i.e. Eiffel. I know nothing *at all* about Eiffel, and I'm much less encouraged to learn about it based on Bertrand's comments. It's not that I'm less interested in it technically; it's just that, due to his attitude toward communication in general, I'm less apt to believe anything he's done technically is useful. |That any "neutral" user gives his opinion about the merits or |deficiencies of C++, Eiffel, Smalltalk, Cobol, BASIC or whatever is |just fine. But shouldn't it be plain decency to restrain from |commenting in such strong and passionnate terms about one's |concurrents' products ? Especially for somebody wishing not to be |a marketing person but to be known as an authority in OO languages and |design ? I remember for instance reading some time ago, in the news, |comments from either Brad Cox or Bjarne Stroustrup about the other's |language; at no time did it have such a bad taste than the referenced |article. Isn't it on the border of arrogance to believe that "I know |the definite, final and only TRUTH about how an object-oriented |language should be designed" ??? Yes. Yes, it should. Unfortunately, the world is run by sales slime. Good luck telling the difference.
g2k@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Frederic Giacometti) (03/05/90)
In article <TOMBRE.90Mar1013132@weissenburger.crin.fr> tombre@crin.fr (Karl Tombre) writes: >In article <259@eiffel.UUCP> bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes: > From <Ec.3251@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > > > Personally, it's the little things like this that make me > > believe that everyone should ABANDON C and move on to C++(two others being > > function prototyping and strong type checking). Waddya think? Wither C? > > How can the words ``strong type checking'' be applied to a language > in which any variable may be cast to any type? In which you declare the > type of a generic list element to be ``pointer to characters''? > > C++ only magnifies the problems of C, and it does not even have the > excuses that can be invoked in the case of a 20-year old design such as C. > [and so on] > >Am I the only one having regularly the following problem? > .......... >article. Isn't it on the border of arrogance to believe that "I know >the definite, final and only TRUTH about how an object-oriented >language should be designed" ??? > Firstly, let me clear up my position on the C/C++ problem: I agree completely with B. Meyer on C/C++. Is it being arrogant than saying that C++ is no more than a bricolage around C when it is the mere truth ? B. Meyer, may strongly cast his opinions, sometimes subtility is the mark of a good mind, but there are other marks as much valuable, among which are frankness and clarity of one's opinion. Secondly, a cultural problem has to be addressed. I am surprised to see this article emitted from a site in France; that person should know that "every frenchman is arrogant" (one of the most common image of French in america: lover and arrogant). This net is not the place to discuss these features of French culture and education which make that Frecnh intellectual life is particularly animated and opiniated (a feature one also finds in Quebeccan politics), a severe contrast with the blendness of anglo-saxon puritan life. By looking at his first name, I shall consider that Karl must not be french. Thirdly, I admire the courage of B. Meyer who successfully started his own independent business. What he is doing is unique in the annals of computer science: to center the development of a new company around the development of a language. And I assert that it is a certificate of quality about the language. As example of low techinical quality products which were commercially successfull because of a name, one can quote the IBM PC line. If you look at the history of computer science, major developments (Apple is the exception) have usually been produced by major corporations rather than by motivated individuals. This dynamism derives from a strong personality (another arrogant man of which we recently heard of was Steve Jobs with his NeXT machines). At least B. Meyer engages the discussion and takes position on problems, whatever it be. He does not hide himself beyond some obscur corporate barrier. Discussions on the net are technical, not commercial. Meyer exposes his technical point of view, not more. Until now, I haven't seen many flaws in his analyzes; if so let me know. His position has the merit of the clarity. One only has to know it. So far, C++ has taken up not much because of its intrinsic value, but because of the support of AT&T. Besides the problems specific to C, it is not even a complete object-oriented language (where is the dynamic binding ?). The compatibility with C is more or less its only advantage from a technical point of view. When he designed the language, Stroustrup grabbed some ideas from Modula, and put some inheritance paradigm. On top of that, the american press, hearing the name AT&T, rushed into it. Bof, it may convince the one who like to follow the masses. In that case, it is sure that the voice of Meyer is very unpleasant, it disturbes what one wants to hear: the mass is right and secure. I maintain that, although for programmers who know C, C++ is the seducing solution, C++ has exceedingly weak theoretical bases to justify its use in the future. Should this be considered as arrogance ? Eiffel has a very strong theoretical and formal support. It is the product of a rigorous approach. All the contrary of C++, of which approach is pragmatic, aimed at solving a short term industrial problem: how to improve C without throwing it away. Well, it is with such raisonning that america is still using the english system of measures, and other degree Farenheit, to the great pleasure of the future generations and technological progress of america. Frederic Giacometti School of Industrial Engineering Purdue University
schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) (03/09/90)
In article <TOMBRE.90Mar1013132@weissenburger.crin.fr> tombre@crin.fr (Karl Tombre) writes: >In article <259@eiffel.UUCP> bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes: > From <Ec.3251@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > > > Personally, it's the little things like this that make me > > believe that everyone should ABANDON C and move on to C++(two others being > > function prototyping and strong type checking). Waddya think? Wither C? > > How can the words ``strong type checking'' be applied to a language ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > in which any variable may be cast to any type? In which you declare the > type of a generic list element to be ``pointer to characters''? > > C++ only magnifies the problems of C, and it does not even have the > excuses that can be invoked in the case of a 20-year old design such as C. > [and so on] > >Am I the only one having regularly the following problem? > > [...] But from time to time, this attitude of his comes up and >annoys me VERY MUCH : he seems to have difficulties accepting that >there are other solutions for object-oriented programming, that other ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >languages exist and are popular for various reasons. He especially >tends to become "rabid" when speaking of C++. [...] Perhaps you ought to *read* what you quote. It seems to me *you* are the one with the attitude problem. Mr. Meyer stated one explicite objection - that C++ cannot be said to have 'strong type checking'. He also stated one general observation - that C++ magnifies the problems of C. He made no comments regarding any of the object-oriented features. Since the thread is about the "robustness" of languages, and Mr. Mellinger suggested C++ for its strong type checking, I think it is entirely fair for Mr. Meyer to comment on this topic. If you disagree with Mr. Meyer, feel free to post why you think C++ does have strong type checking. Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!schow%bcarh185 Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.