Re: [boost] Reason for C++'s Success (was: Reason for Java's Success)

From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-29 21:31:22

"Simon Buchan" <simon_at_[hidden]> wrote

> Sorry, I had to reply to this!

No reason to be sorry, really :)

> Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> > "Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> wrote
> >
> >>The builtin GUI  is a major reason for Java's Success.
> >
> > I think the major reason for Java's (commersial) success is that it has
> > _commersial_ forces behind it.  As opposed to C++, that is mainly moved
> > forward by academics and enthusiasts.
> >
> (I think you mean commercial)

Yes, thanks for correcting me.

> You forgot pretty much every industry that needs to have programs that
> _work_, and quickly, ie. every telephone system in the world has some
> C++, normally a /LOT/ of it, controlling routing, etc...  A large sector
> of the commercial software industry uses C++ (all of Adobe's programs,
> for example).  If you've played a computer game in the last 5 years, it
> *was* written in C++.  C++ is almost always at or near the top of the
> list of languages that are being considered to implement a new project.
>   I would die of old age before I could list everyone who uses C++.

Right, I didn't "forget" about this.

> I'm sure Stroustrup is kicking himself for not making C++ "commercial".
> Why, he could have 700,000 programmers using C++ *right now*, just like
> Java (claims)!  As opposed to the 1.5 million he currently has.
>
> > If we were to make C++ commersially successfull, we would now be
developing
> > threads, all kinds of networking, and database access, like crazy.  But
> > since we are here mostly to have fun, gain an experience, write
articles,
> > etc., we are busy with MPL and PP, lambdas and binders, parsers and
regular
> > expressions, foreach and typeof, etc., etc., etc.  Things that are cool,
and
> > useful for language development, but hardly ever considered when
somebody
> > has to decide in which language to implement a distributed concurrent
> > system.
> >
> Oh yes, it's nearly /impossible/ to get a database, networking or
> threading library for C++.  And I'm sure no one will ever find a use for
> parsers or regular expressions.  And gosh!  MPL!   What a waste of time
> to let the compiler do all the work for you!

No, it won't do _all_ the work ;-)

Who said anything about "no one will ever find a use" or "waste of time"?
All I said was C++ and Java have _fundamentally_ different forces behind
them.  And, as a result, they move forward in fundamentally different ways.

It's great that we have all those libraries I mentioned, and I am honored to
be a co-author of one of them.  But I also find somewhat disturbing the fact
that we still don't have sockets.  And we still can't parse URL.  And the
company I work for uses it's propriatory library for the database access.
And etc., etc., etc.

> OK, enough sarcasm.  (Don't take it too seriously)
>
> > (I hope nobody gets offended.  The above libraries are provided for
example
> > only, and without any hint to their relative importance)
> >
> > As for GUI, the last time I saw a portable one, it sucked.  Yes, I
admit, it
> > was 5 years ago, and it was AWT, so maybe thins changed drammatically?
Are
> > modern GUI libraries really able to produce _decent_ cross-platform GUI?
> >
> Yep.  See other posts here for details.
>
> The /real/ reason Java is successful is because they have a pretty good
> marketing team.  They don't try to sell Java to programmers (the last
> thing we need is yet another language based on C++, but proprietary).
> Oh no, they sell Java to managers.  Having a lot of money to sell it
> with helps as well.

See, that's exactly what I am talking about.  They are businessmen, so they
sell what sells and to whom they can sell it.  And by doing this they
achieve the commercial success.  And as a result replace many C++ jobs with
Java jobs :-(

> Don't take this the wrong way.  All I mean is just because you don't see
> full page ads for how C++ will help your business in every industry
> newsletter, doesn't mean it's not doing well.  (Although you won't be
> hard pressed to find PR guys to tell you it's a "legacy" language.  I
> wonder who they work for?)
> No, I don't make money on C++, apart from programming in the language ;-)

And neither do I.

Regards,
Arkadiy