tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) (09/07/90)
Buried amid BYTE's excellent 15th anniversay issue (page 252) is a short piece by Lee Felsenstein that I have decied to excerpt without permission for the benefit of this group: "....Now I define Sovietization...as something run for the benefit of management. And I think there's been a process under way that results in incremental improvement in the product performance as it should matter to the customer, and really retrograde development in terms of the resources that the product needs. Is as if the efficiency of the personal computer continues to decline.......I then asked "What do high-level languages get you?....He said "...you can use cheaper programmers." And so that has been the development of the software industry as I have observed it. The same programs, pretty much, [are] being written with ever higher and higher levels of languages, being created with structures - industrial structures, in effect - of programmers, in which everyone is filling in boxes inside of boxes. And the people [who] should know what [the software is] doing, up at the top, play musical chairs. Nobody, therefore, knows what the product is supposed to be. Whatever comes out is years late, full of bugs, and the next new and improved version will fix some of the bugs....The last thing on the list is a product that is efficient, a product that does things that no one has ever done before, and a product that is useful and usable by the users without requiring that they vastly increase their hardware." [ end of excerpts ] Although this piece is by a hardware designer discussing micro computers, his criticisms would seem to apply to many, many software projects. All the fine theory and research that is discussed in this group is great, but it still takes a great deal of realpolitik and praxis (to borrow some Soviet phrases) to achieve changes in real, bottom-line, quarterly-results oriented world. Tom Rombouts Torrance Techie tomr@ashtate.A-T.com V:(213)538-7108
kelpie@tc.fluke.COM (Tony Garland) (09/13/90)
In article <1183@ashton.UUCP>, tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts) writes: > Buried amid BYTE's excellent 15th anniversay issue (page 252) is > a short piece by Lee Felsenstein that I have decied to excerpt without > permission for the benefit of this group: > > "What do high-level languages get > you?....He said "...you can use cheaper programmers." And so that has been > the development of the software industry as I have observed it. > This would be true if we were really using high-level languages. Languages such as c++ are examples where this most certainly will not be true. Try taking a "cheap programmer" and getting something useful out of c++. Experience has shown that with such languages "the strong get going and the weak get lost". Of course there are those that would argue that c++ isn't really a higher-level language. Maybe the creators of the language had alterior motives (long term job security for software developers) at heart? Sorry, I couldn't resist! ;-} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Garland - John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc., P.O. Box C9090, Everett, WA 98206 kelpie@tc.fluke.COM | voice (206) 356-5268 | fax (206) 348 2661
cws@janus.Quotron.com (Craig W. Shaver) (09/15/90)
In article <1990Sep13.152836.24228@tc.fluke.COM>, kelpie@tc.fluke.COM (Tony Garland) writes: > In article ... ... > Languages such as c++ are examples where this most certainly will not > be true. Try taking a "cheap programmer" and getting something > useful out of c++. Experience has shown that with such languages > "the strong get going and the weak get lost". > > Of course there are those that would argue that c++ isn't really > a higher-level language. Maybe the creators of the language > had alterior motives (long term job security for software developers) > at heart? > > Sorry, I couldn't resist! ;-} > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tony Garland - John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc., P.O. Box C9090, Everett, WA 98206 > kelpie@tc.fluke.COM | voice (206) 356-5268 | fax (206) 348 2661 Since first learning c++ I have felt that it is not a good answer to the need for delivering quality software in a timely fashion. You must have very well qualified (and highly paid) programmers to at least develop the basic tool sets. c++ appears to me to have the potential for introducing more problems than it alleviates. If you follow the various c++ news groups you will find the participants arguing about complex and arcane facits of the language. I think they have lost sight of the real goal -- developing software for end users. Smalltalk is much closer to what is needed. The c++ people need to rediscover the reasons for using an object oriented approach. Craig W. Shaver ================================================================ Quotron Systems Inc. | Phone: (213) 302-4247 5454 Beethoven Street | uucp: hacgate!janus!cws Post Office Box 66914 | craig@tradr2.quotron.com Los Angeles, CA 90066 | ================================================================
kpc00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (kpc) (09/18/90)
In article <614@janus.Quotron.com> cws@janus.Quotron.com (Craig W. Shaver) writes: software for end users. Smalltalk is much closer to what is needed. The c++ people need to rediscover the reasons for using an object oriented approach. IMHO, the overriding reasons for C++ are (1) compatibility with C, (2) comfort for managers who are afraid to pay programmers to learn a new language, and (3) efficiency. (At the same time that it conforms to the new One True Faith of OOP.) I like C++ so far; it's got some great features beyond C. Smalltalk's great, too. What if we had a good standard C++ library with the most common ADTs? -- If you do not receive a reply from me, please resend your mail; occasionally this site's mail gets delayed. Neither representing any company nor, necessarily, myself.