[ale] Language Jihad!

[Wandered Inn]

Benjamin Scherrey wrote:

>         You certainly must grok the paradigm but I've done a lot of C++ that used
> little, if any OO. C++ also supports functional programming concepts pretty
> strongly through its template mechanisms.

I would say so, since it is, as I noted before, a super set of C.

> >
> > > Indeed, myself and a group of three
> > > other developers did in six months what was predicted to require a group
> > > of 25 C programmers two years to acomplish. This kind of productivity
> > > improvement is common in projects I've participated in.
> >
> > I don't believe it.  Maybe if it's because the comparison was apples to
> > oranges, in that you reused C++ code, verses the C programmers doing it
> > from scratch.  Otherwise, someone's blowing smoke.
> 
>         The C++ project was entirely from scratch, including the architecture. The C
> option had many pre-existing internal libraries to build from. The managers
> didn't believe it either but since it was a pain in the butt project that
> didn't promise much revenue, they decided to give us a chance cause losing
> six months with a few people wasn't going to be a huge overrun compared to 25
> people and two years which they decided they really did have to throw at it.

Someone did not do their homework then.  If this was true, then C would
have died out long ago, as corporations could take their extra 576 man
months to train their 25 C programmers and put everyone out of
business.  I don't doubt that:

1. For the right project
2. Using the proper C++ paradigm
3. Using skilled C++ programmers

It would be possible to reduce the development cycle over a comparable
effort using C.  The key items have been noted.  I still don't believe
your original example of a 576 man month reduction in development
effort.  You're talking a 95% reduction in development effort.  This is
a marketing statement not based on real numbers.  Some one wanted to do
it in C++, and therefore fudged the numbers.

> 
> > >         Critics of C++ claim its too complex. Certainly, to use all of
> > > C++, you've got a long learning curve. However, its not necessary to know
> > > more than 25% of the language's features to take great advantage of it.
> >
> > This is ludicrous.  So which 25% do you learn?  How do you know you're
> > doing it the right way if you don't know the language?
> 
>         Its not ludicrous at all.

You are not going to write decent code knowing 25% of the language. 
Regardless of whether you're talking 'language' or the language and the
various libraries we've all come to know and love.

When we talk about programming in a particular language, we are
including the various stardard libraries.  You're confusing the issue. 
The fact that the paradigm is more difficult to grasp and the language
(including standard libraries) is larger, there's more to learn and it's
harder to learn.  Hence a longer/steeper learning curve period.

--
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at denali.atlnet.com

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds.
The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit
to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his
intelligence." - Albert Einstein
--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.