Al Tompkins Quotes

In the short term, say 10 years, many such standards will be industry standards rather than formal ISO or IEEE standards, but it is essential for the software industry`s health that key interfaces be well-specified and publicly available.

The most novel and interesting part of the standard library is the general and extensible framework for containers and algorithms.

Certainly not every good program is object-oriented, and not every object-oriented program is good.

After all, C++ isn`t a perfect match for Java`s design aims either.

Clearly, I reject the view that there is one way that is right for everyone and for every problem.

This evolution may compromise Java`s claim of being simpler than C++, but my guess is that the effort will make Java a better language than it is today.

People who passionately want to believe that the world is basically simple react to this with a fury that goes beyond what I consider appropriate for discussing a programming language.

Consequently, a general-purpose programming language should support a variety of ways of thinking and a variety of programming styles.

Real improvements in compilers are relatively cheap compared to what is spent on a new release of a complete C++ implementation.

However, when Java is promoted as the sole programming language, its flaws and limitations become serious.

The standard library saves programmers from having to reinvent the wheel.

Somewhat to my surprise, the STL matched the set of criteria for a good set of standard containers for C++ that I had developed over the years.

My list of basic tools is a partial answer to the question about what has changed: Over the past few years, large numbers of programmers have come to depend on elaborate tools to interface code with systems facilities.

Defining OO as based on the use of class hierarchies and virtual functions is also practical in that it provides some guidance as to where OO is likely to be successful.

First, I`d like to see the basic tools such as compilers, debuggers, profilers, database interfaces, GUI builders, CAD tools, and so forth fully support the ISO standard.

Personally, I look forward to better tools for analyzing C++ source code.

Tool vendors have made a good start, but have much work to do in tools that depend on compilers and other source code analyzers.

I also hope that C++ implementation vendors will spend a slightly larger fraction of their budgets on improving the quality and performance of their compilers rather than concentrating too heavily on novelties.

I find languages that support just one programming paradigm constraining.

I would encourage nonproprietary standards for tools and libraries.

Thus, the standard library will serve as both a tool and as a teacher.

It is easy to study the rules of overloading and of templates without noticing that together they are one of the keys to elegant and efficient type-safe containers.

Java has borrowed much from C++, but not as much as is often claimed and not with as much taste and understanding as one could have wished for.

Using the standard library can and should revolutionize the way C++ is taught. It is now possible to learn C++ as a higher level language.

With the increasing importance of standards for system-level objects such as COM and CORBA, it is particularly important that the C++ bindings to those be clean, well documented, and simple to use.

I encourage people to consider the two languages according to their design criteria and not just in the context of commercial rivalries.