On 29/06/18 17:56, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> Les Hatton, the author of "Safer C", has this to say:
> "the programming language appears to be irrelevant in most empirical
> studies of injected defect, implemented size and similar behaviour –
> the most significant factor by a long way remains the quality of the
> engineers producing the system. However, this disguises an unpleasant
> truth about OO in general and C++ in particular.
>
> I first studied and published evidence on this in 1997 in IEEE
> journals. The result of the original studies was a systematic bias in
> C++ towards significantly LONGER defect correction times. In other
> words, when you make a mistake in C++, you really pay for it. If the
> use of C++ led to less defects per implemented functionality, we might
> be able to live with this but there is no evidence that it does."

Yup. Confirms my vague impressions that what matters is good coders not
good languages. And OO is not as good a language meme as its cracked up
to be.

--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05