🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <munk.714828002@prles6b>, munk@prl.philips.nl (Harm Munk) writes:
> 
> If people think that real programs should be written in C or C++, then let's
> stop developing native Modula 2 compilers. Instead, we should have compilers
> that compile to C or C++. If we do that, we use C (and C++ ?) for the purpose
> that it was developed for: glorified assembly ;-).
> 
> And if asked in which language our products are written, we can say that the
> code is in C or C++.

I was forced into a similar situation many years ago.  I used a 
high-level language when developing an application for an organisation
which was used to using assembly language.  The auditors complained.
So I took my object code, ran it through a disassembler, and delivered
the assembly language output.  The auditors were then happy.  Not a
peep over the fact that my final code had no comments, no labels,
no variable names.  I had hoped to make the point that their
requirements were stupid, but they missed the point.

I don't have to like it, though.  These days, I make sure I point out
to all and sundry exactly *why* C/C++ programming is unsafe, and
why it is uneconomical in terms of development time (particularly
debugging time).  It's an uphill battle, but that's no reason for
giving up the battle.

Try working on the project managers and the accountants.  If you
can give them hard proof that they're saving time and money by
specifying M2 (or, indeed, any high-level language) rather than C++,
half the battle is won.  One way to do this is to try to introduce
an environment which permits mixed-language programming (this is one
reason why I recently converted to TopSpeed), and then come up with
some hard figures - by using detailed logs and timesheets - which
show that you're more productive than the rest of the team.

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au