Friday 15 August 2008

( C/C++ != C) && (C/C++ != C++)

A thought which ran through my mind as I was browsing some job requirements recently... Why are recruiters still hung up on "C/C++", years after even Microsoft got around to shipping a reasonably compliant compiler (depending on your prejudices and code needs, anywhere from Visual Studio 6 in 1998 to VS.NET 2003)? "C/C++" started life (or zombiehood) as a Microsoft marketing term back in the late 1980s with the release of Version 7 of their C compiler, which included "some C++ features". MSC 7 wasn't a "real" C++ compiler, but companies such as Borland (now CodeGear), Watcom (now part of Sybase), IBM and others, were shipping compilers that implemented the bulk of the (then-) Draft Standard in a (largely) portable, consistent fashion, so Microsoft was able to muddy the waters by calling their product "C/C++", secure in the knowledge that many of their customers had too little C++ experience to see through the marketing. Incidentally, this (non-Microsoft) competitive innovation spurred numerous advances, such as Alexander Stepanov's (of AT&T, later at HP) Standard Template Library (STL). Microsoft, in response, introduced a "Container Class Library" which was in practice quite inferior (since it required contained objects to be derived from the Microsoft Foundation Class library's CObject class and (if memory serves) did not support either multiple inheritance or thread safety. Since Microsoft's compilers at the time did not properly support important Standard C++ features such as templates and runtime type information (RTTI) that were needed for the STL, the compiler defects created market opportunities for companies like Rogue Wave and Dinkumware to create products with similar but not identical function. Timewise, this was really when Microsoft was starting to really push developer lock-in - the practice of introducting non-standard and/or proprietary "features" which were made central to the development process. Despite the existence of numerous superior (in design, function and in productivity) class libraries such as Borland's ObjectWindows Library, Inmark's zApp library, the previously-mentioned Rogue Wave toolkits, and others, Microsoft's MFC carved out huge market share and mindshare, largely because:
  • it was bundled with the Microsoft C ("C/C++") compiler;
  • its limitations and defects mapped most closely to those of the underlying compiler;
  • it came with a primitive but usable GUI builder, for "click-and-drool" development; and
  • it was relentlessly praised by the Microsoft-beholden tech press of the day.
That last point should never be underestimated; publishers of less-than-laudatory articles, such as C Users Journal and Will Zachmann (when he was writing for PC Magazine) would find themselves cut off from Microsoft's press briefings, rumor mil and other means of "keeping up with the competition". This was meant as punitive, to "hurt" the "offenders"...who promptly wrote up the entire sordid affair, built a certain amount of loyal sympathy from the industry grass-roots, and survived quite well, thank you very much. Getting back to "C/C++"... the term was a marketing fix to a technical problem which rapidly gained "mindshare" with its intended audience: marginally to non-technical people (senior managers, HR people, etc.) who wanted or needed to sound technically knowledgeable. Microsoft was able to play on their lack of real language knowledge coupled with follow-the-herd instincts to help force adoption in enterprises, from the top down. While this helped to increase sales, and helped preserve Windows' market share and lock-in in the enterprise for nearly two decades, it seriously retarded the take-up of standard, portable C++ in the industry (as intended). It also gave companies like ParcPlace (with Smalltalk) and NeXT, later Apple (with Objective-C) incentives to use "alternative" languages, either to gain some "control over their own destiny" independent of a competitor, or simply because C++ at the time was not up to the tasks which they wanted to accomplish. In any event, by around 2000 (plus or minus a half-decade), Microsoft had caught up with where the rest of the industry had been for a decade or so (bringing serious, proprietary backward-compatibility baggage along with them). The marketing need for the 'C/C++' Newspeak was gone - but the corporate world that had learned the newfangled technical language back in the day was still in place, bound only by the Peter Principle (whose bar, thanks to the new technology throughout the enterprise, had been set depressingly high). Consequently, you still run across job ads with text like this (from the Singapore Straits Times of 13 August 2008):

C/C++ EMBEDDED SOFTWARE Engr. Contract. Call 6xxx7085

Truly informative about the needs; at first blush, seemingly written by a completely non-technical HR person. (I didn't follow up the advertisement to actually verify this, however). What's the point of this whole rambling rant? To try to impress upon you, my half-dozen Loyal Readers, a technical truism that has been around as long as there have been technical gadgets: "80% of what you know will be obsolete in n months; the other 20% will never be obsolete. Using that 80% beyond its shelf life just makes you look silly." Or, if not 'silly', then at least 'locked in to an out-of-date technology or idea.' And that, with very high likelihood, does not deliver a competitive advantage to your organization.

No comments: