Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!xlink.net!news.ppp.de!news.Hanse.DE!wavehh.hanse.de!cracauer
From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <1994Dec22.121448.13673@wavehh.hanse.de>
Organization: The poor LISPers' hacking kitchen
References: <19941203T221402Z.enag@naggum.no> <vogtD12y8D.HLL@netcom.com> <3d5alh$6j7@celebrian.otago.ac.nz> <HUNTER.94Dec20152915@work.nlm.nih.gov> <3d86vh$1na@Mars.mcs.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 12:14:48 GMT
Lines: 47
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:104533 comp.lang.lisp:16152

tmoog@MCS.COM (Thomas H. Moog) writes:

>Both the C++ and the Lisp versions are pre-occupied with input/output.

>In a Lisp environment (SmallTalk enviroment, APL environment, even
>Basic !) the data could be loaded once and then manipulated in many
>ways: copied, rescaled, compressed, using builtin language features.
>In a C/C++ environment, the same goal must be accomplished with an
>independent scripting language, shell variables etc.  Lisp has a more
>unified approach which is ideal for exploratory programming.

>I'm an intermediate level C++ programmer, but I think that C++ is
>complex. It is NECESSARY complexity which arises from two design
>decisions: it must be a superset of C and it must only have features
>which can be implemented efficiently on a typical processor.  It met
>its design goals AND it is complex.

>There is a way to measure language complexity to one significant
>digit: the size of a good manual for the language.  The essentials for
>SmallTalk are covered in about 100 pages of the blue book by Goldberg
>(the rest is the "standard library" and details of implementation).
>The C++ ARM is about 400 pages and is much more difficult reading then
>Goldberg.  How large is a Lisp manual ?

The *Common* Lisp Manual is about 1000 Pages. But there are Lisp
dialects that are much smaller. Scheme is one of the smalltest
(full-featured) language of the world and the manual is smaller than
the Index of CLtL2 (the Common Lisp manual), including a useful
Libarary. 

Complexity of languages cannot be compared by the size of their
manuals. You'll never find a way to distinguish the base language from
the library.

As for productivity, I find it obvious that bad notes for C++ come
mainly from the lack of a standard library. This leads to:
- Too many people implement too much of their lib by themself
- Some don't make use of libs in places where they they would be
  better than manual management. This applies mainly for container libs
  vs. simple array work.

This is of course a major hassle for any non-high-end project.

You really should count only voices from people with correct use of
libaries. 
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de> Fax +49 40 522 85 36
