Main Page | Report Page

 

  Computers Forum Index » Computer Languages (Java - Advocacy) » Is C++ a boondoggle?...

Author Message
James Kanze...
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 5:23 pm
 
On May 17, 6:39 pm, camper.ha... at (no spam) rocketmail.com wrote:
Quote:
As everyone who's done professional programming knows, there
are many programmers who try to find ways to expand the amount
of time it takes to complete a project and the amount of
maintenance that is required for a program or system. They do
this out of self-interest: They want oodles of money. While
this is more conspicuous in the public sector than elsewhere,
it is widely occurring in the private sector as well.

Such programmers don't stay employed for very long. (I'm not
sure what you mean about "the public sector". I don't know of
any state run companies which actually write software. The
contract it out, and the companies they contract it to are often
better run than most.)

Management isn't always as dumb as you make out, and typically,
when it is, the companies go under.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze at (no spam) gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
 
Lew...
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 12:36 am
 
Phlip wrote:
Quote:
BTW if this was a troll attempt, try harder. Nobody here in
news:comp.lang.c++ will disagree with your survey of
boondogglery!

James Kanze wrote:
Quote:
But that's just because he hasn't presented any facts to
disagree with.

People in comp.lang.java.advocacy might prefer that off-topic posts disappear,
though.

--
Lew
 
Phlip...
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 12:38 am
 
Lew wrote:

Quote:
Phlip wrote:

BTW if this was a troll attempt, try harder. Nobody here in
news:comp.lang.c++ will disagree with your survey of
boondogglery!

James Kanze wrote:
But that's just because he hasn't presented any facts to
disagree with.

People in comp.lang.java.advocacy might prefer that off-topic posts
disappear, though.

Yabsolutely. If there's a platform out there free of boondogglery, J2EE would
certainly be it!

(VBGDRC...)
 
Lew...
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 12:41 am
 
camper.ha... at (no spam) rocketmail.com wrote:
Quote:
As everyone who's done professional programming knows, there
are many programmers who try to find ways to expand the amount
of time it takes to complete a project and the amount of
maintenance that is required for a program or system. They do
this out of self-interest: They want oodles of money. While
this is more conspicuous in the public sector than elsewhere,
it is widely occurring in the private sector as well.

James Kanze wrote:
Quote:
Such programmers don't stay employed for very long. (I'm not
sure what you mean about "the public sector". I don't know of
any state run companies which [sic] actually write software. The
contract it out, and the companies they contract it to are often
better run than most.)

In the United States, "the public sector" refers to government agencies, and
metonymically to those companies who serve government contracts.

There are government employees, and certainly there are companies, who write
software for use by government agencies. That's the public sector.

As to whether government contractors are "often" "better run" than "most",
that's a statement that needs definitions of terms and empirical evidence.

Quote:
Management isn't always as dumb as you make out, and typically,
when it is, the companies go under.

Interesting as this discussion of C++ is, it's off topic for
comp.lang.java.advocacy.

--
Lew
 
Lew...
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 12:45 am
 
Quote:


Phlip wrote:
BTW if this was a troll attempt, try harder. Nobody here in
news:comp.lang.c++ will disagree with your survey of
boondogglery!

James Kanze wrote:
Quote:
But that's just because he hasn't presented any facts to
disagree with.

Lew wrote:
Quote:
People in comp.lang.java.advocacy might prefer that off-topic posts
disappear, though.

Phlip wrote:
Quote:
Yabsolutely. If there's a platform out there free of boondogglery, J2EE
would certainly be it!

People in comp.lang.java.advocacy might prefer that off-topic posts
disappear, though. The OP spoke of C++, right down to the subject line.

As to the on-topic part of your post, platforms are just platforms.
"Boondogglery" is a manifestation of process, not technology. Naturally I
advocate using technology, C++ or Java, in a manner free of "boondogglery".

BTW if this was a troll attempt, don't try harder. Nobody here in
comp.lang.java.advocacy will disagree with your apparent distaste for
"boondogglery".

--
Lew
 
Lew...
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 1:13 am
 
Old Pif wrote:
Quote:
Don't let professional programmers to screw your business. Especially
those from India.

This topic is not about Java. Especially the jingoistic nonsense is not. If
programmers from India can do a better job for less money than those from
somewhere else, then programmers from India should get the work.

--
Lew
 
Stuart Golodetz...
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 4:39 am
 
James Kanze wrote:
Quote:
On May 17, 6:39 pm, camper.ha... at (no spam) rocketmail.com wrote:
As everyone who's done professional programming knows, there
are many programmers who try to find ways to expand the amount
of time it takes to complete a project and the amount of
maintenance that is required for a program or system. They do
this out of self-interest: They want oodles of money. While
this is more conspicuous in the public sector than elsewhere,
it is widely occurring in the private sector as well.

Such programmers don't stay employed for very long. (I'm not
sure what you mean about "the public sector". I don't know of
any state run companies which actually write software. The
contract it out, and the companies they contract it to are often
better run than most.)

If you're serious then I may have to rethink my opinion of government
contracts(!) Here in the UK, the public impression seems very much to be
that government computer projects tend to be unmitigated disasters
awarded to the lowest bidders.

Perhaps the humongous failures are only the tip of the iceberg though? I
can certainly see that safety-critical software systems for things like
the space shuttle, fighter jets, etc., are likely to be far better
engineered than most (I was under the impression that in such cases the
software was often subjected to formal proof methods?) Am I missing
something?

Stu

Quote:
Management isn't always as dumb as you make out, and typically,
when it is, the companies go under.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze at (no spam) gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

 
James Kanze...
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:35 am
 
On May 19, 2:39 am, Stuart Golodetz
<sgolod... at (no spam) NdOiSaPlA.pMiPpLeExA.ScEom> wrote:
Quote:
James Kanze wrote:
On May 17, 6:39 pm, camper.ha... at (no spam) rocketmail.com wrote:
As everyone who's done professional programming knows,
there are many programmers who try to find ways to expand
the amount of time it takes to complete a project and the
amount of maintenance that is required for a program or
system. They do this out of self-interest: They want oodles
of money. While this is more conspicuous in the public
sector than elsewhere, it is widely occurring in the
private sector as well.

Such programmers don't stay employed for very long. (I'm
not sure what you mean about "the public sector". I don't
know of any state run companies which actually write
software. The contract it out, and the companies they
contract it to are often better run than most.)

If you're serious then I may have to rethink my opinion of
government contracts(!) Here in the UK, the public impression
seems very much to be that government computer projects tend
to be unmitigated disasters awarded to the lowest bidders.

It obviously depends on the agency awarding the contract. Never
the less, some US agencies do require SEI rating, and some of
the best run projects I'm aware of have been government
contracts. (NASA's space shuttle software, for example).

In the one field I'm very familiar with: the privatisation of
the various telecoms in Europe has resulted in a definite
lowering of the quality of the software from their
subcontractors.

Quote:
Perhaps the humongous failures are only the tip of the iceberg
though?

In general---private or public. Don't forget: for the failure
to be humongous, it has to be a humongous project, which means
from a humongous organization. And we don't hear much about
failures in the private humongous organizations---although I'm
aware of some, they're not news.

Quote:
I can certainly see that safety-critical software systems for
things like the space shuttle, fighter jets, etc., are likely
to be far better engineered than most (I was under the
impression that in such cases the software was often subjected
to formal proof methods?) Am I missing something?

Large organizations (again, private or public) aren't
monolithic. And they provide a lot of possibilities for hiding
waste. Judging from the recent news, General Motors doesn't do
any better than the governments:-). In general, the smaller the
organisation, the better. (Or maybe that's just because if it
isn't, it quickly disappears.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze at (no spam) gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
 
Tony...
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:39 pm
 
James Kanze wrote:
Quote:
On May 17, 6:58 pm, Phlip <phlip2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
camper.ha... at (no spam) rocketmail.com wrote:
As everyone who's done professional programming
knows, there are many programmers who try to find ways
to expand the amount of time it takes to complete
a project and the amount of maintenance that is
required for a program or system. They do this out of
self-interest: They want oodles of money. While this is more
conspicuous in the public sector than elsewhere,
it is widely occurring in the private sector as well.

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

(OTOH that sounds suspiciously similar to this bullet point:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?YouKnowYoureInaBigCompanyWhen

* SAP is brought in to make everything more efficient and
everything becomes more difficult.)

I've never worked on a project where SAP was used, so I couldn't
say. (I wasn't even aware that it was a project managment
tool.) But the points in the list seem a mixed bag, and at
least partially blaming the tool because management didn't know
how to use it. (Clearcase is far and away the best source code
control system I've used---it's the only one I've used which has
been more or less transparent for the developer.)

SAP provides enterprise planning, operations and management software
solutions and associated services via large consultant partners like
Accenture for large verticals. It's an alternative to building things like
ERP and CRM and supply chain management software in-house from the ground up
or with disjoint packages and integration technologies. (Instead of building
software tailored to your business, you tailor your business to SAP
solutions which supposedly have all the industry best-practices "already in
the box"). Surely they have implementation project processes for their
products, and have project methods for introducing or reengineering their
clients' business processes to fit their solution paradigm, but I don't
believe they offer anything in the PM space in general.

While SAP is the "buy" rather than "build" solution, it's not like
installing a shrinkwrap product but rather an alternative highly complex
thing to do rather than software development with C++ and MQ Series etc, but
it may not seem that way to the decision makers especially after having
experienced a failed C++ project or two, or three. I think that is the
perspective that the OP was referring to with the "...make everything more
efficient..." statement. SAP clients are really buying the "best practices"
and processes and "growing up" their business instead of going through a
long evolution over generations (or at least that is the plan anyway). A
business without the requisite operational or planning or management
knowledge of the industry they are in (maybe they have a great product
flying off store shelves everywhere but lack world-class business knowledge)
can hire a billion C++ coders, but they'd have nothing to code! SAP to the
rescue.
 
Michael Tsang...
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:25 am
 
Michael Doubez wrote:

Quote:
On 23 mar, 16:53, Jim Balson <lab... at (no spam) cherrystonesoftware.com> wrote:
camper.ha... at (no spam) rocketmail.com wrote:

It sounds like you are looking to make your life simpler at the expense
of your customers. That is selfish, my friend. Developing commercial
applications should not be about making life easier for the developer.
It's about developing the best application to be delivered to customers.
Period. By moving away from C/C++, you may very well be making your life
asa developer a little easier, maybe. But if there is any certainty
here, it's that the performance of your application will suffer as a
result of your selfish choice of programming languages, be it Java or
C#. Need proof:

http://www.cherrystonesoftware.com/doc/AlgorithmicPerformance.pdf

Have a good day.

Have you really looked at the implementation of the various tests ?
And what is tested ?

Just one more worthless benchmark in the sea of prog-language-X-is-the-
best FUD.

Don't you know that these benchmarks are simply of academic interest? The
most important thing in a piece of commercial software is stability and
reliability, *not* performance. Performance is important *only* in
programming contests.
 
Miles Bader...
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:33 am
 
Michael Doubez <michael.doubez at (no spam) free.fr> writes:
Quote:
Just one more worthless benchmark in the sea of prog-language-X-is-the-
best FUD.

The crosspost list make it pretty obvious it's a (clumsy) troll.

-miles

--
Education, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish
their lack of understanding.
 
Leigh Johnston...
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:03 pm
 
"Michael Tsang" <miklcct at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hoc14a$6oc$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Quote:
Michael Doubez wrote:

On 23 mar, 16:53, Jim Balson <lab... at (no spam) cherrystonesoftware.com> wrote:
camper.ha... at (no spam) rocketmail.com wrote:

It sounds like you are looking to make your life simpler at the expense
of your customers. That is selfish, my friend. Developing commercial
applications should not be about making life easier for the developer.
It's about developing the best application to be delivered to customers.
Period. By moving away from C/C++, you may very well be making your life
asa developer a little easier, maybe. But if there is any certainty
here, it's that the performance of your application will suffer as a
result of your selfish choice of programming languages, be it Java or
C#. Need proof:

http://www.cherrystonesoftware.com/doc/AlgorithmicPerformance.pdf

Have a good day.

Have you really looked at the implementation of the various tests ?
And what is tested ?

Just one more worthless benchmark in the sea of prog-language-X-is-the-
best FUD.

Don't you know that these benchmarks are simply of academic interest? The
most important thing in a piece of commercial software is stability and
reliability, *not* performance. Performance is important *only* in
programming contests.

I think games programmers and writers of libraries would disagree with you
that performance is not important.

/Leigh
 
 
Page 1 of 1    
All times are GMT
The time now is Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:44 pm