Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!newsfeed.tip.net!news.seinf.abb.se!nooft.abb.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sal!johnson From: johnson@sal.cs.uiuc.edu (Ralph Johnson) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.sather,comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: Rapid Prototyping + statically-typed OOPLs? Date: 17 Jul 1995 18:21:53 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 23 Message-ID: <3ue9o1$q6t@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> References: <805548287snz@galacta.demon.co.uk> <1995Jul13.154620.4333@rcmcon.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: theorysal.cs.uiuc.edu Xref: news.daimi.aau.dk comp.object:33663 comp.lang.beta:469 comp.lang.c++:129651 comp.lang.eiffel:9367 comp.lang.python:5086 comp.lang.sather:1960 comp.lang.smalltalk:24491 Ian.Mitchell@sunderland.ac.uk (Ian Mitchell) writes: >One advantage to using C++ in prototyping is the terseness >of the language. It is easy to extract a call tree for each C++ >method and rework the O-O model in a language-independent >environment. "Terseness of the language"???? Programs in C++ are three times the size of the same programs in Smalltalk. Moreover, it is much easier to manipulate Smalltalk programs (at least in ParcPlace Smalltalk) because there is an OO representation of programs already developed. I'm not arguing with what you are doing; most people using OOP are using C++ so it makes sense to use C++ if you want to make tools that people are doing. On the other hand, what you are doing is much harder to do in C++ than in Smalltalk, Beta, and (probably) Eiffel, just to mention the languages whose newsgroups this is being posted to. I don't know much about Python or Sather, so it is possible that C++ is the hardest of the whole bunch. -Ralph Johnson