Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad) From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1997/05/15 Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++ Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Bjarne Stroustrup | In the early years, we carefully monitored and measured several projects | converting from C to C++. The least improvement we found over the first | half year (measured from the start of C++ training) was 15%. since this took place in the early years, I surmise that very little of the rotting driftwood had drifted into C++, and that it was relatively easy to use the language. those of us who have read your "early years" material also know that you worked very hard to ascertain actual improvements and fed data from such projects directly into the language design. now, not only considering the effect that is referred to as the Hawthorne effect, I can certainly understand that lasting improvement would be found from giving people the power to influence their programming language, especially when the starting point is so limiting as C. I have a few question. (1) which features and/or changes caused the 15% "carefully monitored and measured" improvement? (2) is today's C++ able to cause the same improvement? (3) are the features that caused improvement features that you would claim are _significant_ features of C++, or just those "a better C" features? #\Erik -- if we work harder, will obsolescence be farther ahead or closer?