🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <270@nih-csl.UUCP>, keith@nih-csl.UUCP (keith gorlen) writes:
> Talking about what is do-able is pointless -- any language with the
> power of a Turing machine can do anything, theoretically.  The
> question is what things does a language make it easy and pleasant to
> do.  C++ features such as strong type checking and references make it
> a better C for those not doing O-OP...

True, but why use either if you are not going to be using O-OP?

> ...Features such as classes,
> function and operator overloading, user-controlled implicit type
> conversion, and guaranteed initialization/finalization make it far
> better for programming with abstract data types than Objective-C or
> Modula-2, for example.  And derived classes and virtual functions make
> C++ as good or better than Objective-C for O-OP.

I believe I detect a bit of bias in this statement.  Let's face it,
Smalltalk is the "model of an OO language".  (Please let's not start a
discussion about how good/bad you think Smalltalk is).  What PPI has
tried to do is to allow you to use most of the advantages of Smalltalk
while allowing you to speed up the final result (compiler vs.  interpreter).  
To name just one feature that is missing from C++, Objective-C has the concept 
of "class methods" (i.e. Classes are treated like objects).  Without getting
picayune, Objective-C gives you a compiled version of Smalltalk (please,
no flames from Smalltalkers -- I wouldn't trade Smalltalk for either,
I'm just trying to make a point) -- C++ does not.

I'm not saying that Objective-C is better than C++ (or vice versa), but
I am saying that which is better can be greatly swayed by your frame of
reference.

> > I will mention though, that Objective-C has a source-level debugger 
> > for it, called Vici.
> 
> What C++ currently lacks are the symbolic debugger and the extensive,
> mature, supported class library that Objective-C has.  But these are
> just a matter of time.

So does that mean I should use C++ now because some day I'll have a
debugger and a healthy library to draw upon?  It's just a matter of time 
until my thought patterns can be turned into words, and then programs -- 
does this mean I should stop typing!?!  Anyone who knows anything about OOP
knows that one of the great attractions of it is its idea of (as PPI calls it) 
"software ICs" which can be used over and over and be built upon.  Anyone
who has ever programmed knows the value of a debugger.

I don't know about you, but most of the work I do has to be done in the
present and not in the future.  I choose to use the best tools that are
available to me.  I don't believe anybody (with the possible exception of a
person in a university environment) can truly evaluate any language without
evaluating what tools are available with the language.  A language is
just a vehicle to produce some product.  The goal is the product, not
the language.  Therefore if the language (along with its tools) get that
product completed earlier (and, might I add, with less frustration) than
another, the language is superior.

Once again, I'm not saying one is better than the other.  The point is
that one can not throw out certain features (tools) of the language in
evaluating that language.

One last point (take it or leave it) is that if/when C++ has the "symbolic 
debugger and the extensive, mature, supported class library that Objective-C 
has" now, what additional features might Objective-C have.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Auer					Paradyne Corporation
{gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!ken		Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-8307				P.O. Box 2826
						Largo, FL  34649-9981

"The views expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of my
employer, which by no means makes them incorrect."