Re: Question re. FSF GNU SmallEiffel vs. C and C++

[mike corbeil ordinary user account <mcorbeil at NetRevolution dot com>]

Thanks Saran.  I appreciate the response, but won't say more, to avoid
wasting the time of members of this mailing list.  If others want to
continue enlightening the world, then I'll gladly read.


Saran wrote:
> 
> >From what I understand about Eiffel when I was studying it in University, is
> that this language is more robust in certain aspects like strong
> assertions(pre- and post-), no pointers(doesn't allow the programmer to
> manipulate pointers directly), type checking, etc.  This means that there is
> less likelyhood of programs corrupting data or overwriting information in
> memory, etc.  The ESA (European Space Agency) uses Eiffel for their
> programs.  In short, this language was designed so that you don't screw up
> and destroy a multi-billion dollar project due to a small error in your
> data.
> 
> The thing that I'd like to stress is that Eiffel is actually an evolution in
> to a programming language.  It started off as a methodology for programming
> or something like that, and then evolved in to a programming language of its
> own right.  It is not in fact a front end language.  The reason that the
> implementors of the language chose to convert the code into C or C++ is for
> performance reasons, as compilers for C and C++ at that time was very
> efficient as well as fast execution code;  it is able to interface with a
> multitude of other languages; and furthermore C or C++ is a mainstay for
> UNIX systems.
> 
> If you ask me what I think about Java, I'd say that it is a hyped up
> language that is useful for only one thing, which is flashy moving graphics.
> It is basically useless for anything else other than online internet
> applications which are slow and basically a reinvention of the wheel (A
> C/C++ wannabe).  The only good thing going for Java is the multiplatform
> use, which I think is not that great at all.  Don't even bother comparing
> Eiffel to Java or even C/C++ for that matter, as these languages were
> designed for different applications.
> 
> Ok, this is just my point of view on things, so don't start flaming me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Saran.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org]On
> Behalf Of mike corbeil ordinary user account
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:35 PM
> To: 'gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org'
> Subject: Re: Question re. FSF GNU SmallEiffel vs. C and C++
> 
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 17, 2000, mike corbeil ordinary user account
> <mcorbeil@NetRevolution.com> wrote:
> 
> Since I didn't get nailed in any way for posting the question to this
> mailing list, I'll venture a little further, because I don't know that
> you'd want this only sent direct to you.  The bit more follows your
> respone.
> 
> >
> > > the SmallEiffel compiler translates the code to or into C, followed
> > > (obv.) by compiling the C code.  This seems tentatively or possibly
> > > okay, or even good, if it avoids problems people have with C++, and
> > > C; however, this also means that SmallEiffel is more of a macro
> > > language than a real one, albeit modelled after or based on the
> > > Eiffel language.
> >
> > This is not unlike the first implementation of C++, that was also a
> > translator from C++ to C.  Given enough time and interest, people may
> > eventually write a front-end for GCC, that may allow more higher-level
> > information about the source program to be exposed to the compiler,
> > providing for language-specific optimizations.
> 
> In other words, you're not saying that Eiffel or SmallEiffel is
> something you're against, based on your experience and knowledge, if I
> understand you correctly.
> 
> I found some material to read last night (I have a book from several
> years ago, but it's not within reach) and from the albeit small amount
> of actual Eiffel language used to highlight certain aspects or strengths
> of the language, it looks interesting.
> 
> I've taken an OOP course using C++, read a few or more reputable books,
> and worked for a few months with it; however, having read several months
> ago that Eiffel was considered better, I'm wondering which to focus on
> for some self-study and subsequently trying to find employment.
> 
> I have around ten years experience, mostly on Unix, with "enough" C and
> shell scripting, database and gui development, PASCAL (years ago), some
> FORTRAN, ..., and a b.sc. CS (swe).  With all of the importation of
> foreign labor, I'm in need of  taking some time to learn Linux, Perl
> (these two, I've been working on for about six months), and would like
> to get some good compiled language in the mix.
> 
> Even if I've already more than broken the ice with C++, I've heard or
> read that many people or projects have problems with it, and the little
> I've read about Eiffel makes it sound like a good way to go.  There
> aren't presently many jobs for this, but there are a few or more
> companies which are apparently using it.  If it is as good as what I've
> read, then I may have some chance of getting future clients (or
> employers) to accept using Eiffel, especially since it's a "front-end"
> to C and makes C programs better (supposedly anyway).
> 
> The fact that it does compile to C, they're working on improving the
> compile to Java bytecode (which SmallEiffel already has some of), and
> "hooks" to C and (I believe) C++ are supported, well, this makes Eiffel
> seem of value (but I'm not sure).  Someone from Lockheed, a guru or a
> manager (or both), supposedly recommends Eiffel over Ada95, and from
> what I read, it's only a little slower than normal C and C++ binaries,
> due to assertions.  The expressiveness looks, at least initially,
> interesting, and I like focusing on providing good and "clean"
> solutions.
> 
> However, I don't have personal acquaintances who know anything about
> Eiffel; therefore, I've only the little reading for a basis.  The
> documents I've read on Eiffel speak more highly of Java compared to C++,
> and don't seem to make a whole lot of the difference between Eiffel vs.
> Java, but do say that Eiffel is better in some supposedly important ways
> (I don't remember exactly which these are).  I only know of Java being
> used for internet/intranet/web, my background is systems programming,
> and I haven't been planning on becoming a web developer, not per se
> anyway (if I got hired for that, then ...).
> 
> Having C for experience and Eiffel compiling to C, with many companies
> using GCC, seems a potential plus.
> 
> I think that I'm satisfied with it compiling to C, after last night's
> reading.  Using Eiffel may be or is a way of providing more reliable C
> code, and with C being considered an object-based language, good for
> component oriented development, the extra or robust data typing of
> Eiffel makes it, again, seem probably worthwhile.
> 
> Linux and Perl, alone, with my prior experience, should open doors of
> opportunity, but I'd like to learn more OOA/OOD/OOP with a compiled
> language.  Java would be an option, and I wouldn't mind Smalltalk, but
> I'm in the world of fuzzy logic at the moment, evidently.
> 
> This, hopefully, isn't too long and not too out of place for this
> mailing list, however do you have any further tips or feedback to share
> based on this additional gibberish?  It'd be appreciated, if you have
> any.
> 
> P.S.  I don't really care whether work is in FORTRAN, C, C++, ... for
> the primary focus is to do the best that can be done with which ever
> language is pertinent to a job.  For new development, providing the
> best, or at least a very good, solution, one that's easy to understand,
> maintain, and reliable, is the way (in case this is of any help in
> understanding where I'm "coming from").  (Sorry for the length.)
> 
> >
> > --
> > Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
> > Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
> > CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
> > Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me