lalonde@ftms.UUCP (John LaLonde) (09/04/90)
In article <56975@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes: >One way to try to put comparisons of OOPLs into perspective is to try >to measure how much interest there is in each language. I've been tracking >such interest by noting how many references to the various languages >appears each month in the Computer Library database. The database is ... > >C++ 2044 >Smalltalk 869 >Objective-C 228 >Eiffel 48 This "comparison" of interest in OOLs can be misleading. Are you implying that this type of perspective indicates something more than interest? My objection is to the implication that level of interest indicates worthiness (i.e. since more people are interested in it then it must be better). Since you are a major advocate for C++ (based on the number of articles posted) perhaps there is more to your comment than just numbers. I believe that C++ is a better C. Given the huge interest in standard C the number posted for C++ is believeable. My point is that there are other factors contributing to these numbers some of which have nothing to do with OOLs. I hope that "level of interest" is not used to determine that C++ is a "better" OOL than Eiffel, Objective-C or Smalltalk. -- harvard\ att\ ucbvax!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!ftms!root rutgers/ decvax/ INTERNET: spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!nicmad!ftms!root
jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) (09/06/90)
In article <6@ftms.UUCP> lalonde@ftms.UUCP (John LaLonde) writes: |In article <56975@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes: |>One way to try to put comparisons of OOPLs into perspective is to try |>to measure how much interest there is in each language. I've been tracking |>such interest by noting how many references to the various languages |>appears each month in the Computer Library database. The database is ... |> |>C++ 2044 |>Smalltalk 869 |>Objective-C 228 |>Eiffel 48 | |This "comparison" of interest in OOLs can be misleading. Are you implying |that this type of perspective indicates something more than interest? My |objection is to the implication that level of interest indicates worthiness |(i.e. since more people are interested in it then it must be better). Since you |are a major advocate for C++ (based on the number of articles posted) perhaps |there is more to your comment than just numbers. Lots of things can be misleading -- trying to correlate the words of posted praise for a particular OOP language to the actual usability of that language -- for example. The numbers posted above are only one more way of comparing languages. What's the "right" way to compare languages, and which language is "best" ??? -- Only an individual user can decide that for themselves. The history of marketing would indicate that a wide variety of products can coexist, meeting the particular needs of individual consumers. Should we then expect that there is a universally "correct" answer for "What is the best language?"? To put the above OOPL numbers in broader perspective, "C" has about 10X more references than "C++", but C++ [and most other OOPLs] are still growing rapidly, while "C" coverage is remaining stagnant. Personally, I find these kind of simple studies helpful in keeping OOP, and OOPLs in perspective.