problems/risks due to programming language

[Frederic Giacometti]

In article <TOMBRE.90Mar1013132 at weissenburger.crin.fr> tombre at crin.fr (Karl Tombre) writes:
>In article <259 at eiffel.UUCP> bertrand at eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes:
>   From <Ec.3251 at cs.psu.edu> by melling at cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger):
>
>   > Personally, it's the little things like this that make me
>   > believe that everyone should ABANDON C and move on to C++(two others being
>   > function prototyping and strong type checking).  Waddya think?  Wither C?
>
>       How can the words ``strong type checking'' be applied to a language
>   in which any variable may be cast to any type? In which you declare the
>   type of a generic list element to be ``pointer to characters''?
>
>       C++ only magnifies the problems of C, and it does not even have the
>   excuses that can be invoked in the case of a 20-year old design such as C.
>   [and so on]
>
>Am I the only one having regularly the following problem?
>
 ..........
>article. Isn't it on the border of arrogance to believe that "I know
>the definite, final and only TRUTH about how an object-oriented
>language should be designed" ???
>


  Firstly, let me clear up my position on the C/C++ problem: I agree
completely with B. Meyer on C/C++. Is it being arrogant than saying
that C++ is no more than a bricolage around C when it is the mere truth ?
  B. Meyer, may strongly cast his opinions, sometimes subtility is the mark
of a good mind, but there are other
marks as much valuable, among which are frankness and clarity of one's
opinion. 

  Secondly, a cultural problem has to be addressed. I am surprised to see this article emitted from a site in France; that
person should know that "every frenchman is arrogant" (one of the most
common image of French in america: lover and arrogant). This net is not the
place to discuss these features of French culture and education which
make that Frecnh intellectual life is particularly animated and opiniated (a feature one also
finds in Quebeccan politics), a severe contrast with the blendness of anglo-saxon puritan life.
By looking at his first name, I shall consider that Karl must not be french.
  
  Thirdly, I admire the courage of B. Meyer who successfully started his
own independent business. What he is doing is unique in the annals of
computer science: to center the development of a new company around the
development of a language. And I assert that it is a certificate of
quality about the language. As example of low techinical quality products
which were commercially successfull because of a name, one can quote the
IBM PC line.
  If you look at the history of computer science,
major developments (Apple is the exception) have usually been produced
by major corporations rather than by motivated individuals. This dynamism
derives from a strong personality (another arrogant man of which we
recently heard of was Steve Jobs with his NeXT machines). At least
B. Meyer engages the discussion and takes position on problems, whatever
it be. He does not hide himself beyond some obscur corporate barrier. 
Discussions on the net are technical, not commercial. Meyer exposes his
technical point of view, not more. Until now, I haven't seen many flaws in his
analyzes; if so let me know. His position has the merit of the clarity. 
One only has to know it.

  So far, C++ has taken up not much because of its intrinsic value, but
because of the support of AT&T. Besides the problems specific to C, it is
not even a complete object-oriented language (where is the dynamic binding ?).
The compatibility with C is more or less its only advantage from a technical
point of view. When he designed the language, Stroustrup grabbed some
ideas from Modula, and put some inheritance paradigm. On top of that,
the american press, hearing the name AT&T, rushed into it. Bof, it may
convince the one who like to follow the masses.  In that case, it is sure
that the voice of Meyer is very unpleasant, it disturbes what one wants
to hear: the mass is right and secure.

 I maintain that, although for programmers who know C, C++ is the seducing
solution, C++ has exceedingly weak theoretical bases to justify its use
in the future. Should this be considered as arrogance ?
  Eiffel has a very strong theoretical and formal support. It is the
product of a rigorous approach. All the contrary of C++, of which approach is
pragmatic, aimed at solving a short term industrial problem: how to improve
C without throwing it away. Well, it is with such raisonning that america
is still using the english system of measures, and other degree Farenheit,
to the great pleasure of the future generations and technological progress
of america.

Frederic Giacometti
School of Industrial Engineering
Purdue University