In article <3n30kf$rih@hardcopy.ny.jpmorgan.com>, jborkole@jpmorgan.com
says...
>
>matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) wrote:
>[snip]
>>There are good reasons for using C++, but I think it's true that some
>>people use it simply because they know nothing about the alternatives.
>>That's a pity; ignorance is never a good thing.  Programmers ought to
>>have a wide knowledge of the available tools before they make
>>decisions.
>>
>>--
>>Matt Austern                                 matt@physics.berkeley.edu
>>http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
>This person obviously needs the attentions of a doctor, he appears to have
been
>afflicted by some kind of rationality. People with this symptom must be
careful
>when posting as it is liable to be interpreted in the wrong way!
>Having used a variety of OO languages like Actor, Smalltalk, C++ and
Eiffel,
>although some only briefly, this is indeed just common sense. Spend your
>spare time doing something like using the shareware version of Oberon or
Eiffel
>or invest in cheap versions of these languages like Personal Eifflel. It is
>ignorance that leads to uniformed oppions for and against C++ or any
language.
>But it is easier said than done, employers are reluctant at this time to
>sponsor
>this kind of activity. Perhaps one day the importance of this kind of
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
activity
^^^^^^^^
>will be recognised.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>BTW C++ rools.
>

There was a day and age at AT&T Bell Laboratories when this sort of
activity was encouraged. Then three factors changed the face of AT&T
Bell Laboratories and it has never been the same since.

 1. Divestiture
 2. Affirmative Action
 3. The Digital World

Divestiture changed AT&T Bell Laboratories because over night people
were told, you now must "compete". Most people that joined Bell Labs
had no idea what that meant and they still do not. Divestiture caused
a new breed of Bell Labs individual to rise to the top. People with
the skills to break knee caps and to twist arms became the new leaders
of Bell Labs. The days of the old "birds of a feather" sessions at
UNIX meetings are long gone from Bell Labs.

Affirmative Action caused AT&T Bell Labs to downplay excellence and
to showcase mediocrity. This allowed them to more easily meet "goals"
(not quotas) and to explain to everyone that rigid rule following
was the key to success. This killed skunk works, self education, and
other forms of fun and games, which were perceived by everyone as an
evil plot against woman, blacks, and other minorities. People of all
sexes and color left when they saw that excellence was no longer at
the top of the priority list.

Those people left to join "The Digital World". It is ironic that Bell
Labs helped to start the digital world with the invention of the
transistor. Even though they did not play a large part in the follow
through with the integrated circuit, their influences were felt.
Unfortunately because of Divestiture and Affirmative Action, Bell Labs
as many of us knew it in the 70's has been transformed into a second
rate operation that will not likely survive the 90's. It is a shame
but people with the skills once sought after by Bell Labs, now are
dispersed in "The Digital World". When those people were collected
in one place, they were an awesome force. C++ would have never happened
if Bell Labs was the place it was in the 70's.

The Internet and all of its contributing members is now the closest
thing to the "old" Bell Labs of the 70's. Fortunately, people can
not easily detect race, religion, sex, or sexual preference on the
Internet. This is a place where ideas and curiosity are king, not
the color of one's skin or the shape of one's body. This is our world
and fortunately it is still a place where people are allowed to consider
many options and are allowed to use their own brains to think. They
are not told to blindly accept someone else's opinion in the spirit
of competition or in order to give the person a "career opportunity".

This is a place for sharing all ideas from all people. The primary
requirement for participation is being well informed and having ideas.


--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <19950404.223134.871277.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU> dhanley@okeeffe (David Hanley) writes:

> : In fact the reverse is the case. A
> : little bit of OO knowledge leads to using C++.
>
>         Could you please restate this, or explain this in an
> intelligent way?  It sounds like a unsubstantaited and somewhat
> rediculous statement.

I don't know whether or not Ian substantiated this statement, but I
suspect that it's true regardless.  It's plausible, anyway.  If you
know a little bit about object-oriented programming, then you'll
probably start using the first object-oriented language you've heard
of, or the one that's easiest to get your hands on.  Which is C++.

There are good reasons for using C++, but I think it's true that some
people use it simply because they know nothing about the alternatives.
That's a pity; ignorance is never a good thing.  Programmers ought to
have a wide knowledge of the available tools before they make
decisions.

--
Matt Austern          matt@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt

matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) wrote:
[snip]
>There are good reasons for using C++, but I think it's true that some
>people use it simply because they know nothing about the alternatives.
>That's a pity; ignorance is never a good thing.  Programmers ought to
>have a wide knowledge of the available tools before they make
>decisions.
>
>--
>Matt Austern          matt@physics.berkeley.edu
>http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
This person obviously needs the attentions of a doctor, he appears to have been
afflicted by some kind of rationality. People with this symptom must be careful
when posting as it is liable to be interpreted in the wrong way!
Having used a variety of OO languages like Actor, Smalltalk, C++ and Eiffel,
although some only briefly, this is indeed just common sense. Spend your
spare time doing something like using the shareware version of Oberon or Eiffel
or invest in cheap versions of these languages like Personal Eifflel. It is
ignorance that leads to uniformed oppions for and against C++ or any language.
But it is easier said than done, employers are reluctant at this time to
sponsor
this kind of activity. Perhaps one day the importance of this kind of activity
will be recognised.
BTW C++ rools.

Ian Joyner (ian@syacus.acus.oz.au) wrote:

: Let's be careful that you are not implying that Eiffel and Smalltalk are
: languages that are used by less than expert programmers, and that C++
: is for use in serious programming.

        I think he is inplying that.  Furthermore, I would
agree that he is correct.

: In fact the reverse is the case. A
: little bit of OO knowledge leads to using C++.

        Could you please restate this, or explain this in an
intelligent way?  It sounds like a unsubstantaited and somewhat
rediculous statement.


: >        However their use is limited by difficulty of
: >interfacing to operating systems and APIs.

: Interfacing to APIs is very simple, and well controlled in Eiffel.

        And do you think it is easier in eiffel than in C++?  Do
you know what an os is like, or have you been coding in eiffel
too long, ( andd writing what, sample programs in a deperate
attempt to match the speed of C++? :) )

: I think this will change within a decade. C++s reputation is already
: severely tarnished,

        Hardly.  it is doing quite well.  The only time I see "tarnish" is
when loudmouthed simpletons make sweeping unsubstaintated statements
about languages.  Like.. Well..

: Perhaps the commercial world will go OO COBOL. I think that
: will be a preferable route to C++.

        Speaking of simpletons....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| David James Hanley, KSC--dhanley@lac.eecs.uic.edu -- C++, OOD, martial arts|
| Laboratory for advanced computing      |      My employer barely KNOWS me. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, GOD spelled backwards is DOG.
But BOB spelled backwards is still BOB.

In article <3l83dh$88m@asia.lm.com> kanak@telerama.lm.com (Jim Kownacki) writes:

*snip*
   2) You were asked a good question.  And you ducked it.  The person asked
      you why you don't form a c@t usenet news group, instead of f*king up
      this group.  I thought that was an excellent question.  Wouldn't you
      agree that it was excellent?

_I_ know the answer to this one.  EXPOSURE!  As I see it, if Jimbo goes and
starts a comp.lang.C+@ newsgroup, 99% of the posts will be his.  The remaining
1% of the posts will be from some poor sucker (such as myself) who wonders
what the heck C+@ is.

None of the posts I have seen from JF have help me to understand C+@; in fact,
they have assisted my decision to pursue other languages and not waste my
time on C+@.

Incidentally, I find it interesting that there was no JF response to the rather
fine set of questions posted by Mr. Kownacki.  JF sure seems to have an answer
every other post.

JAB

In article <3lhgpo$3e7@hermes.dna.mci.com>, 7231780@mcimail.com says...
>
>In <3l83dh$88m@asia.lm.com>, kanak@telerama.lm.com (Jim Kownacki) writes:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
>>I could have told them 10 years ago that
>>Smalltalk is dead.  Smalltalk ain't important commercially.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>Being an impartial observer here in the forum, this last statement you
>made is so grossly inaccurate, I consider summarily dismissing all
>other arguments you made in any forum.  You obviously are not in
>possession of the facts about Smalltalk's booming acceptance in the
>business marketplace.
>
>Are you sure you don't spell your last name with a 'Ph'?

@ - I did not write any of the above noted lines...

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <3l83dh$88m@asia.lm.com>,
Jim Kownacki <kanak@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>
>Oh please.  They're hedging their bets on how big the Smalltalk market is
>going to get?  Please.  I could have told them 10 years ago that
>Smalltalk is dead.  Smalltalk ain't important commercially.  It's that
>simple.

        In Australia this is not true. Smalltalk is NOT dead.
It is doing fine, and sometimes replacing C++. I would guess
it as a smaller percentage of the OO market than C++ over here,
but the percentage is significant. And it appears to be growing.
Eiffel has a tiny share, but that may change because it is
used as a teaching language and is becoming increasing more
commerialised.

        Since both Eiffel and Smalltalk have Garbage Collection
and C++ doesn't they both offer significant advantages,
especially to teams of less than expert programmers.

        However their use is limited by difficulty of
interfacing to operating systems and APIs.

        IMHO C/C++ is already _the_ major international
general purpose programming language and there is no
chance it will be knocked off the top of the mountain
for at least a decade. Its closest contender is probably
still COBOL. :-(

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
        Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA         Phone: 61-2-566-2189

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

In article <D6AD98.2Mn@syacus.acus.oz.au>,
Ian Joyner <ian@syacus.acus.oz.au> wrote:
>maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
>
>> Since both Eiffel and Smalltalk have Garbage Collection
>>and C++ doesn't they both offer significant advantages,
>>especially to teams of less than expert programmers.
>
>Let's be careful that you are not implying that Eiffel and Smalltalk are
>languages that are used by less than expert programmers, and that C++
>is for use in serious programming.

 I didn't say that so you don't have to imply it.

>In fact the reverse is the case. A
>little bit of OO knowledge leads to using C++.

 Not everyone WANTS to write OO code. Whatever that is.
>
>> However their use is limited by difficulty of
>>interfacing to operating systems and APIs.
>
>Interfacing to APIs is very simple, and well controlled in Eiffel.

 Oh. Just how does Eiffel interface to the Microsoft
Windows SDK -- which is supplied with C header files?
Can Eiffel read C?

>> IMHO C/C++ is already _the_ major international
>>general purpose programming language and there is no
>>chance it will be knocked off the top of the mountain
>>for at least a decade. Its closest contender is probably
>>still COBOL. :-(
>
>I think this will change within a decade.

 I think you are overloy optimistic about the important
to the market of quality above everything else.

 I suggest compatibility is a much stronger driving force.
It is why C++ is successful, it is why it will continue to
be sucessful for some time to come -- despite the existence
of other cleaner systems.

>C++s reputation is already
>severely tarnished, and as you say, Eiffel and Smalltalk and even
>others are gaining in popularity, because of their clear advantages
>over C++.


 Yes, but like the stock market, things swing too and fro.
Standardisation will boost C++, and so will STL. The enhanced
language developed by the C++ committee is considerably more
powerful than ARM C++ (although no "cleaner").

 C++ retains major advantages -- efficiency and
compatibility. And it isn't really that clear that Smalltalk
and Eiffel are all that much better.

>Perhaps the commercial world will go OO COBOL. I think that
>will be a preferable route to C++.

 I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. C++ is not
really _that_ bad. I mean COBOL is excellent at some things,
but it is not -- and never will be -- a general purpose
programming language with the scope of C++.

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

    I for one agree, Matt:  C and C++ are not very pretty
    or easy on the programmer sometimes, but the history
    books are filled with much more elegant languages
    that couldn't measure up for performance or
    control.

    -------------

In article <3l83dh$88m@asia.lm.com>,
Jim Kownacki <kanak@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>
>Oh please.  They're hedging their bets on how big the Smalltalk market is
>going to get?  Please.  I could have told them 10 years ago that
>Smalltalk is dead.  Smalltalk ain't important commercially.  It's that
>simple.

 In Australia this is not true. Smalltalk is NOT dead.
It is doing fine, and sometimes replacing C++. I would guess
it as a smaller percentage of the OO market than C++ over here,
but the percentage is significant. And it appears to be growing.
Eiffel has a tiny share, but that may change because it is
used as a teaching language and is becoming increasing more
commerialised.

 Since both Eiffel and Smalltalk have Garbage Collection
and C++ doesn't they both offer significant advantages,
especially to teams of less than expert programmers.

 However their use is limited by difficulty of
interfacing to operating systems and APIs.

 IMHO C/C++ is already _the_ major international
general purpose programming language and there is no
chance it will be knocked off the top of the mountain
for at least a decade. Its closest contender is probably
still COBOL. :-(

--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
 Maxtal Pty Ltd,
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA     Phone: 61-2-566-2189

In article <3l7hk9$naf@cnn.exu.ericsson.se>, ebumow@ebu.ericsson.com says...
>
>In article kmg@News1.mcs.com,  jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>>In article <blaszczak.796019791@BIX.com>, blaszczak@BIX.com says...
>>>
>>>jim.fleming@bytes.com (Jim Fleming) writes:
>>>
>>>>of C++...I was surprised that there was no mention of C+@...I asked
>>>
>>>How is that surprising to you?  C+@ only has one vendor supporting it
>>>(and they only support it on one platform!).  What should make it a
>>>candidate for mention by Stroustrup, in a book on the design of C++,
>>>no less?
>>>
>>
>>Even though you make these comments via a BIX account, we have
>>to assume that you are also speaking for your employer or at
>>least helping to post innacurate information as above for the
>>best interest of your employer.
>>
>
>What's innacurate ? My understanding is that C+@ is available from
>one vendor, now as always. In a previous post, I think *you* said c+@ was
>only supported on one platform.
>
>
If you consider AT&T as that single vendor this is true.

Most of the "major" compiler vendors have Technology Evaluation Kits.
Some want to see how long the C++ market holds out and how big the
Smalltalk market grows before they announce "products". Others appear
to be "going to school" on the technology and you will be seeing some
"interesting" developments for the next couple of years.

>This has nothing to so with the C++ language, please take this
>elsewhere.
>

This is not true. Some clever "research" guys have come up with a way
to make C+@ look as ugly as C++. This is sort of like putting a
"dog costume" on a "cat" and having it run around for a little while
as long as the market wants dogs. When the Smalltalk market grows and
everyone realizes that they really wanted a C+@, we take the ugly
costume off.

The ANSI C++ people (comp.std.c++) have not come up with a good answer
on what would happen in this case. In other words, we could go with the
baroque syntax of C++, knowing that C+@ is underneath. This is the
way C++ started by having Cfront create C source. We could propose
some changes to the ANSI standard to make this easier. Some of the
committee members claim this can't be done, because C+@ is a different
language. Our point is that, as long as C++ looks like a dog, as long
as it barks like a dog, it's a dog.

>
> ---
> Mickey Williams
> Ericsson, Inc.            Business Systems Division
> +1 714 236-6753
> The opinions above are mine alone, and not those of my employer...
>
>
>

--
Jim Fleming            /|\      Unir Corporation       Unir Technology, Inc.
%Techno Cat I        /  | \     One Naperville Plaza   184 Shuman Blvd. #100
Penn's Landing      /   |  \    Naperville, IL 60563   Naperville, IL 60563
East End, Tortola  |____|___\   1-708-505-5801         1-800-222-UNIR(8647)
British Virgin Islands__|______ 1-708-305-3277 (FAX)   1-708-305-0600
                 \__/-------\__/       e-mail: jim.fleming@bytes.com
Smooth Sailing on Cruising C+@amarans  ftp: 199.3.34.12 <-----stargate----+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\____to the end of the OuterNet_|

Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
> >What's innacurate ? My understanding is that C+@ is available from
> >one vendor, now as always. In a previous post, I think *you* said c+@ was
> >only supported on one platform.

> Most of the "major" compiler vendors have Technology Evaluation Kits.
> Some want to see how long the C++ market holds out and how big the
> Smalltalk market grows before they announce "products". Others appear
> to be "going to school" on the technology and you will be seeing some
> "interesting" developments for the next couple of years.

Oh please.  They're hedging their bets on how big the Smalltalk market is
going to get?  Please.  I could have told them 10 years ago that
Smalltalk is dead.  Smalltalk ain't important commercially.  It's that
simple.  Aside from being an interesting excursion into how _not_ to
design a class library, it really serves as a good beginner's lesson on
why multiple inheritance is needed.

> >This has nothing to so with the C++ language, please take this
> >elsewhere.
> >

> This is not true. Some clever "research" guys have come up with a way
> to make C+@ look as ugly as C++. This is sort of like putting a
> "dog costume" on a "cat" and having it run around for a little while
> as long as the market wants dogs. When the Smalltalk market grows and
> everyone realizes that they really wanted a C+@, we take the ugly
> costume off.

Jim, what are you trying to accomplish in this area?  I suspect you have
some financial involvement in C+@, whatever the hell that is.  (I say
whatever the hell that is, because you have failed to answer my post
asking several detailed questions about it - which says worlds more than
could any answer you would have given).  But why the Smalltalk fixation?
If you're going to bash a language, Smalltalk would seem to me to be a
much better target that C++.

Now here's two big questions from my list.  Failure to answer them again
will only serve to make you appear even more irrational.

1) If c@+ is a great language and/or product, why aren't you selling it
   on its merits instead of by trying to trash its nearest relatives?
   I might try something if its sold to me.  But if your only sales pitch
   is based on bashing others, and you hit home, I'm likely to move on to
   some other language, but only one that has advertised some good points.

2) You were asked a good question.  And you ducked it.  The person asked
   you why you don't form a c@t usenet news group, instead of f*king up
   this group.  I thought that was an excellent question.  Wouldn't you
   agree that it was excellent?

--