>the problem is that managers think one language fits all, and that
>language is now C++. this is likely to drive me from being a s/w
>engineer into being a s/w manager.
>
>I fail to understand why it is that the implementation language even
>needs to be mentioned. we bid, we win, we implement, we support. would
>you go over to Computer City and ask what language Microsoft Word is
>written in? if they said ALGOL 60, would you buy something else
>instead? (you'd probably be more amazed that the words ALGOL 60 even
>came out of their mouth)
>
Here ... here! Another engineer and I are single-handedly managing two
lisp applications for multiple projects, while each of us is simultaneously
working on three other tasks (most are fortunately lisp-based). Yet, inspite
of our demonstration of maintainability and rapid response to new
requirements, our management here still holds to the C/C++ is the defacto
standard language for all applications. Even though it is sort of an apple
to oranges comparison (the C/C++ based applications are strictly maintained
in the standard requirements documentation/lifecycle way, while we have
yet to be force into that paradigm) the equivalent C++ application to mine
eats up ~5x the budget of my stuff and requires ~4x the manpower support.
... oh well
ยทยทยทยท@beowulf.jpl.nasa.gov (Curt Eggemeyer) writes:
>working on three other tasks (most are fortunately lisp-based). Yet, inspite
>of our demonstration of maintainability and rapid response to new
>requirements, our management here still holds to the C/C++ is the defacto
>standard language for all applications. Even though it is sort of an apple
>to oranges comparison (the C/C++ based applications are strictly maintained
>in the standard requirements documentation/lifecycle way, while we have
>yet to be force into that paradigm) the equivalent C++ application to mine
>eats up ~5x the budget of my stuff and requires ~4x the manpower support.
> ... oh well
That may well be true, and I don't want to seem be taking a position
in the Lisp v. C++ debate (which is a good way to get your head shot
off to no good purpose, kind of like sightseeing in Bosnia). That
said, I should point out that support and maintenance issues are
very dependant on the skill and professionalism of the programmers
who wrote the original code. If you and the C++ programmers were
interchanged, I expect that ratio would be quite different.
C++'s problem is that you _can_ write very good code with it, but
it's a lot easier to write incomprehensible garbage. C had that
problem to begin with, and C++ seems to have raised it to a higher
degree of seriousness. For that matter, Lisp can get pretty flaky;
but (dangerous generalization) there are a lot more untrained
amatuers writing C++ code than writing Lisp code.
In general, a lot of the programmers writing code out there are
really terrible, but I haven't seen a proposal for handling it that
looked workable.
--
A. Lloyd Flanagan a.k.a. "Wild Card"
Think: What you do when you can't thwim. -- Dexter's Disturbed Dictionary