LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  February 1998

TEAM-ADA February 1998

Subject:

humor in the C/C++ vein

From:

"Frank Solensky (by way of Mike Kamrad <[log in to unmask]>)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Frank Solensky (by way of Mike Kamrad <[log in to unmask]>)" <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:21:44 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (296 lines)

FYI.  I apologize if you've seen this already...mike

> - - ------- Forwarded Message
>
> >Subject: Stroustrup's interview leaked...
>
> >On the 1st of January, 1998, Bjarne Stroustrup gave an interview to the
> >IEEE's 'Computer' magazine.
> >
> >naturally, the editors thought he would be giving a retrospective view of
> >seven years of object-oriented design, using the language he created.
> >
> >By the end of the interview, the interviewer got more than he had bargained
> >for and, subsequently, the editor decided to suppress its contents, 'for
the
> >good of the industry' but, as with many of these things, there was a leak.
> >
> >Here is a complete transcript of what was was said,unedited, and
> >unrehearsed, so it isn't as neat as planned interviews.
> >
> >You will find it interesting...
> >__________________________________________________________________
> >Interviewer:  Well, it's been a few years since you changed the world of
> >software design, how does it feel, looking back?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Actually, I was thinking about those days, just before you
> >arrived. Do you remember?  Everyone was writing 'C' and, the trouble was,
> >they were pretty damn good at it. Universities got pretty good at teaching
> >it, too. They were turning out competent - I stress the word 'competent' -
> >graduates at a phenomenal rate. That's what caused the problem.
> >
> >Interviewer:  problem?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Yes, problem. Remember when everyone wrote Cobol?
> >
> >Interviewer:  Of course, I did too
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Well, in the beginning, these guys were like demi-gods. Their
> >salaries were high, and they were treated like royalty.
> >
> >Interviewer:  Those were the days, eh?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Right. So what happened?  IBM got sick of it, and invested
> >millions in training programmers, till they were a dime a dozen.
> >
> >Interviewer:  That's why I got out. Salaries dropped within a year, to the
> >point where being a journalist actually paid better.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Exactly. Well, the same happened with 'C' programmers.
> >
> >Interviewer:  I see, but what's the point?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Well, one day, when I was sitting in my office, I thought of
> >this little scheme, which would redress the balance a little. I thought 'I
> >wonder what would happen, if there were a language so complicated, so
> >difficult to learn, that nobody would ever be able to swamp the market with
> >programmers?  Actually, I got some of the ideas from X10, you know, X
> >windows. That was such a bitch of a graphics system, that it only just ran
> >on those Sun 3/60 things. They had all the ingredients for what I wanted.
> >A really ridiculously complex syntax, obscure functions, and pseudo-OO
> >structure. Even now, nobody writes raw X-windows
> >code. Motif is the only way to go if you want to retain your sanity.
> >
> >[NJW Comment: That explains everything. Most of my thesis work was in raw
> >X-windows. :)]
> >
> >Interviewer:  You're kidding...?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Not a bit of it. In fact, there was another problem. Unix was
> >written in 'C', which meant that any 'C' programmer could very easily
become
> >a systems programmer. Remember what a mainframe systems programmer used to
> >earn?
> >
> >Interviewer:  You bet I do, that's what I used to do.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  OK, so this new language had to divorce itself from Unix, by
> >hiding all the system calls that bound the two together so nicely. This
> >would enable guys who only knew about DOS to earn a decent living too.
> >
> >Interviewer:  I don't believe you said that...
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most people
> >have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste of time but, I must
say,
> >it's taken them a lot longer than I thought it would.
> >
> >Interviewer:  So how exactly did you do it?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought people
would
> >take the book seriously. Anyone with half a brain can see that
> >object-oriented programming is counter-intuitive, illogical and
> >inefficient.
> >
> >Interviewer:  What?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear of a
> >company re-using its code?
> >
> >Interviewer:  Well, never, actually, but...
> >
> >Stroustrup:  There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the early days.
> >There was this Oregon company - Mentor Graphics, I think they were called -
> >really caught a cold trying to rewrite everything in C++ in about '90 or
> >'91. I felt sorry for them really, but I thought people would learn from
> >their mistakes.
> >
> >Interviewer:  Obviously, they didn't?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Not in the slightest. Trouble is, most companies hush-up all
> >their major blunders, and explaining a $30 million loss to the shareholders
> >would have been difficult. Give them their due, though, they made it work
> >in the end.
> >
> >Interviewer:  They did?  Well, there you are then, it proves O-O works.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Well, almost. The executable was so huge, it took five minutes
> >to load, on an HP workstation, with 128MB of RAM. Then it ran like treacle.
> >Actually, I thought this would be a major stumbling-block, and I'd get
found
> >out within a week, but nobody cared. Sun and HP were only too glad to sell
> >enormously powerful boxes, with huge resources just to run trivial
programs.
> >You know, when we had our first C++ compiler, at AT&T, I compiled 'Hello
> >World', and couldn't believe the size of the executable. 2.1MB
> >
> >Interviewer:  What?  Well, compilers have come a long way, since then.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  They have?  Try it on the latest version of g++ - you won't
get
> >much change out of half a megabyte. Also, there are several quite recent
> >examples for you, from all over the world. British Telecom had a major
> >disaster on their hands but, luckily, managed to scrap the whole thing and
> >start again. They were luckier than Australian Telecom. Now I hear that
> >Siemens is building a dinosaur, and getting more and more worried as the
> >size of the hardware gets bigger, to accommodate the executables. Isn't
> >multiple inheritance a joy?
> >
> >Interviewer:  Yes, but C++ is basically a sound language.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  You really believe that, don't you?  Have you ever sat down
and
> >worked on a C++ project?  Here's what happens: First, I've put in enough
> >pitfalls to make sure that only the most trivial projects will work first
> >time. Take operator overloading. At the end of the project, almost every
> >module has it, usually, because guys feel they really should do it, as it
> >was in their training course. The same operator then means something
> >totally
> >different in every module. Try pulling that lot together, when you have a
> >hundred or so modules. And as for data hiding. God, I sometimes can't help
> >laughing when I hear about the problems companies have making their modules
> >talk to each other. I think the word 'synergistic' was specially
invented to
> >twist the knife in a project manager's ribs.
> >
> >Interviewer:  I have to say, I'm beginning to be quite appalled at all
this.
> >You say you did it to raise programmers' salaries?  That's obscene.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Not really. Everyone has a choice. I didn't expect the
thing to
> >get so much out of hand. Anyway, I basically succeeded. C++ is dying off
> >now, but programmers still get high salaries - especially those poor devils
> >who have to maintain all this crap. You do realise, it's impossible to
> >maintain a large C++ software module if you didn't actually write it?
> >
> >Interviewer:  How come?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  You are out of touch, aren't you?  Remember the typedef?
> >
> >Interviewer:  Yes, of course.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Remember how long it took to grope through the header files
> >only to find that 'RoofRaised' was a double precision number?  Well,
imagine
> >how long it takes to find all the implicit typedefs in all the Classes in a
> >major project.
> >
> >Interviewer:  So how do you reckon you've succeeded?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Remember the length of the average-sized 'C' project? About 6
> >months. Not nearly long enough for a guy with a wife and kids to earn
enough
> >to have a decent standard of living. Take the same project, design it in
C++
> >and what do you get?  I'll tell you. One to two years. Isn't that great?
> >All that job security, just through one mistake of judgement. And another
> >thing. The universities haven't been teaching 'C' for such a long time,
> >there's now a shortage of decent 'C' programmers. Especially those who know
> >anything about Unix systems programming. How many guys would know what
to do
> >with 'malloc', when they've used 'new' all these years - and never bothered
> >to check the return code. In fact, most C++ programmers throw away their
> >return codes. Whatever happened to good ol' '-1'?  At least you knew you
had
> >an error, without bogging the thing down in all that 'throw' 'catch' 'try'
> >stuff.
> >
> >Interviewer:  But, surely, inheritance does save a lot of time?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  does it?  Have you ever noticed the difference between a 'C'
> >project plan, and a C++ project plan?  The planning stage for a C++ project
> >is three times as long. Precisely to make sure that everything which should
> >be inherited is, and what shouldn't isn't. Then, they still get it wrong.
> >Whoever heard of memory leaks in a 'C' program?  Now finding them is a
major
> >industry. Most companies give up, and send the product out, knowing it
leaks
> >like a sieve, simply to avoid the expense of tracking them all down.
> >
> >Interviewer:  There are tools...
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Most of which were written in C++.
> >
> >Interviewer:  If we publish this, you'll probably get lynched, you do
> >realise that?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  I doubt it. As I said, C++ is way past its peak now, and no
> >company in its right mind would start a C++ project without a pilot trial.
> >That should convince them that it's the road to disaster. If not, they
> >deserve all they get. You know, I tried to convince Dennis Ritchie to
> >rewrite Unix inC++.
> >
> >Interviewer:  Oh my God. What did he say?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Well, luckily, he has a good sense of humor. I think both he
> >and Brian figured out what I was doing, in the early days, but never let
> >on.
> >He said he'd help me write a C++ version of DOS, if I was interested.
> >
> >Interviewer:  Were you?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Actually, I did write DOS in C++, I'll give you a demo when
> >we're through. I have it running on a Sparc 20 in the computer room. Goes
> >like a rocket on 4 CPU's, and only takes up 70 megs of disk.
> >
> >Interviewer:  What's it like on a PC?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Now you're kidding. Haven't you ever seen Windows '95? I think
> >of that as my biggest success. Nearly blew the game before I was ready,
> >though.
> >
> >Interviewer:  You know, that idea of a Unix++ has really got me thinking.
> >Somewhere out there, there's a guy going to try it.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Not after they read this interview.
> >
> >Interviewer:  I'm sorry, but I don't see us being able to publish any of
> >this.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  But it's the story of the century. I only want to be
remembered
> >by my fellow programmers, for what I've done for them. You know how much a
> >C++ guy can get these days?
> >
> >Interviewer:  Last I heard, a really top guy is worth $70 - $80 an hour.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  See?  And I bet he earns it. Keeping track of all the
gotchas I
> >put into C++ is no easy job. And, as I said before, every C++ programmer
> >feels bound by some mystic promise to use every damn element of the
language
> >on every project. Actually, that really annoys me sometimes, even though it
> >serves my original purpose. I almost like the language after all this time.
> >
> >Interviewer:  You mean you didn't before?
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Hated it. It even looks clumsy, don't you agree?  But when the
> >book royalties started to come in... well, you get the picture.
> >
> >Interviewer:  Just a minute. What about references?  You must admit, you
> >improved on 'C' pointers.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Hmm. I've always wondered about that. Originally, I thought I
> >had. Then, one day I was discussing this with a guy who'd written C++ from
> >the beginning. He said he could never remember whether his variables were
> >referenced or dereferenced, so he always used pointers. He said the little
> >asterisk always reminded him.
> >
> >Interviewer:  Well, at this point, I usually say 'thank you very much' but
> >it hardly seems adequate.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Promise me you'll publish this. My conscience is getting the
> >better of me these days.
> >
> >Interviewer:  I'll let you know, but I think I know what my editor will
> >say.
> >
> >Stroustrup:  Who'd believe it anyway?  Although, can you send me a copy of
> >that tape?
> >
> >Interviewer:  I can do that.
>
> - - ------- End of Forwarded Message

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager