Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news.dfci.harvard.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!nntp.neu.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!bone.think.com!blanket.mitre.org!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!mv!usenet
From: "Anonymous" <kcolassi@Teletrol.com>
Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
Organization: Teletrol Systems Inc.
Message-ID: <01bc1382$87412140$595c7dc7@ken-colassi>
References: <5d8o3v$fl3@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: teletrol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:35:52 GMT
Lines: 181
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:245771 comp.lang.smalltalk:51007 comp.lang.lisp:25152

For the most part nothing...

OO is ok with me. I naturally construct my object oriented
taxonomies with nouns & verbs and with some re-work every
thing fit's and works ok.

I give it a thumbs up.

cosc19z5@bayou.uh.edu <cosc19z5@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote in article
<5d8o3v$fl3@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>...
> Dann Corbit (dcorbit@solutionsiq.com) wrote:
> : Travis C. Porco <porco@stat.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in article
> 
> [Snip]
> 
> : > But first, one must ask whether it is desirable to learn it in the
first
> : place. 
> : > C++ is by all accounts exceedingly difficult to master.  
> : By what accounts?  I have no problem understanding it, and I'm not a
> : genius.  There are thousands of commercial programmers and analysts who
> : have made the leap.  Many times as many as Lisp and Smalltalk put
together.
> 
> He said "master", not "understand".  Understanding C++ is one thing,
> but mastering it is another.  There are so many nuances and
> pathological horrors that await you in the bowels of this, the
> most overrated of languages, that you will be befuddled time
> and again, and turn your tear stained faced up towards the heavens
> and cry "Why me Lord, why hath thou forsaken me?!?!?".
> 
> First, you have the miserable failings of C to contend with, and
> then you have the extra horrors that C++ decided to throw in for
> good measure.  Object oriented extensions slapped on top of an
> inadequate, archaic, low level language, a programming experience
> do not make.
> 
> 
> : > What is the return
> : > on our time investment?  Especially when there are even higher level 
> : > languages available than C++, in particular Common Lisp with its
object
> : system
> : > CLOS.
> : What a load of crap.  If you are talking about 'return on investment'
C++
> : is absurdly higher than Common Lisp.  Look at the amount of development
> : that is going on in C++ and compare it with what is going on in Lisp.  
> 
> That depends on what you define as "return on investment".  If
> by "return on investment" you mean better job opportunities, then
> yes C++ sure does have a higher return on investment.  But if
> you mean the ability to produce reliable, maintainable code, then
> C++ is a complete failure in this regard and gives you zero return
> on investment.
> 
> 
> : Only
> : a fool will thing they will get a higher ROI from a study of Lisp,
which is
> : at least as difficult to master as C++.  
> 
> Kindly leave some of your belligerence at home.  This is a public
> forum where many different opinions and facts are discussed, and
> your attitude does little to promote intelligent discourse.  
> 
> 
> : Go to a bookstore, and see how
> : much effort is being put forth to provide C++ instruction, compared to
> : Lisp.  
> 
> While you're at it, see how much effort is being put forth to provide
> Visual Basic instruction.  Popularity and Quality are very often
> two mutually exclusive things.  Do not confuse the two.  C++ is
> a miserable language, but one that is tremendously popular.
> 
> If you want to ride the wave of popularity, then be my guest.
> However, some of us are leaving our surfboards at home and 
> prefer to swim upstream, to where the real gains are.
> 
> Lisp, while not my favorite language, is a language that is
> leaps and bounds ahead of C and it's inbred cousin, C++.
> The fact that in Lisp you can worry about coding the problem
> at hand, rather than playing with copy constructors, assignment
> overloading, pointers, and destructors speaks for itself.
> 
> 
> : Will you be able to use your Lisp skills on every platform you might
> : need to work on?  
> 
> Yes.  You see, Lisp is not only available as is, but is also the
> extension language for Emacs, The World's Finest Editor (tm).  With
> Lisp under my belt I can customize Emacs to jump through hoops and
> boost my productivity by leaps and bounds, even if my job entails
> programming in another language (I've already used it to save some
> *SERIOUS* time at work).  
> 
> Furthermore, there's the Scheme Shell, which you can use for
> UNIX shell programming, and who knows what else -- in addition
> to your standard Lisp code.  
> 
> Furthermore, others do code in Lisp.  I've seen various extension
> packages written in Lisp, even the videogame Abuse, had some
> Lisp code in there.  
> 
> 
> : Look at the tools that are available for C++ compared to
> : Lisp.  
> 
> Given C++'s uselessness, you'll need them.
> 
> 
> : Will you be able to pull a big pile of Lisp code into your design
> : tool and automatically create object diagrams from it?  
> 
> It depends on the tools and vendor now doesn't it?
> 
> 
> : On dozens of
> : platforms?  
> 
> Ditto, but more likely for C++ due exclusively to it's popularity.
> 
> : Yes, I do realize that Smalltalk and Lisp are viable tools that
> : do answer real-life business problems.  Sometimes they are the best
tool
> : for the job.  Just less often than C++.  
> 
> Actually, it's the other way around.  It's rare when C++ is needed
> to do something that a superior language cannot do better.  C++
> is used for one reason and one reason only -- popularity.  It is
> the fad, and hence it is used.  It is a woefully inadequate 
> programming language for even the most trivial of tasks. 
> 
> 
> : How many trained programming
> : resources does a typical organization have for C++ verses those
> : alternatives?  
> 
> And how many roaches can one find in a house versus humans?
> 
> 
> : Neither Smalltalk nor Lisp will ever have the following nor
> : the utility that C++ does.
> 
> Nor will they have the bugs, crappy reputation, or laughable
> "features".
> 
> 
> :  
> : > The choice of language tools is not, as some would say, a matter of 
> : > "programming religion" purely.  Some languages really do provide
enhanced
> : > productivity by abstraction.  Who would deny that it is faster and
safer
> : > to write applications in C than in assembler?  
> : Please don't let Nudds hear you.  And it is not always true.  Just most
of
> : the time.
> 
> Nudds, dear lord people really have it in for that guy.
> 
> 
> : As always, all this stuff is IMO - YMMV.
> 
> Ditto here.
> 
> 
> : Please send hate mail to me, rather than pollute the newsgroups with a
> : language war.
> : dcorbit@SolutionsIQ.com
> 
> 
> --
> Cya,
> Ahmed
> 
> You call it romance,
> You're full of shit!
> 	"Filler" by Minor Threat		
> 
