The conclusion mentioned some interesting truisms about prototyping, team-size-induced-complexity and "long bugs" vs "short bugs". Good stuff. If the PDF was not a collection of images of the text, i'd have copy-pasted that bit here. :)
The paper is dated 94 which is the same year as the original implementation as the C++ STL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Template_Library#Impl...). So it's a fair bet they didn't have access to that. I would think the entire difficulty of the exercise would change with that.
If it was written before 1998 I expect you'd find a version of C++ that existed before 1998 :)
If it was written today, I don't know that's a really good question. I think its a mistake to ignore the advances that 2011 and 2014 bring to the table though.
I do not think that someone wants to use C++11/14 to make app prototype. There are a lot more languages now which in my opinion are better suited to prototyping than languages mentioned in article. Most of people will use Python, JS or some other scripting language.
digitalzombie|8 years ago
Likewise C++ isn't going to be as concise as Haskell ever.
So the paper still hold some truth if not mostly valid.
cies|8 years ago
marcosdumay|8 years ago
Still, they are so different from each other that I don't think all that change makes much of a difference.
flogic|8 years ago
jlarocco|8 years ago
flukus|8 years ago
acadien|8 years ago
If it was written today, I don't know that's a really good question. I think its a mistake to ignore the advances that 2011 and 2014 bring to the table though.
oselhn|8 years ago