Slashdot Mirror
EiffelStudio Goes Open
WeiszNet writes "Bertrand Meyer, the creator of Eiffel the language and CTO of Eiffel Software in Santa Barbara, CA has announced in his Software Architecture course at ETH Zurich that the company's flagship product - EiffelStudio was released under the GPL today. Here is the press release: and the project's page.
Eiffel is an object oriented programming language supporting contracts. Last year the international standard (ECMA) for Eiffel was released and now the initiative to go open has been taken."
This was the #1 reason for not using Eifell.
Eiffel is an object oriented programming language supporting contracts.
I was beginning to get concerned about the incredible lack of object oriented programming languages currently available.
Fortunately, there's now another one to choose from that is now free.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Wikipedia knows.
The big thing is design by contract. Calling procedures specify what they will guarantee functions and what they expect, functions guarantee what they won't change and list what they expect. This makes code reuse actually practical, since global effects are spelled out.
For example a sqrt function will require x >= 0, that is the calling function must have checked. Since this is specifically listed in the contract your calling function is expected to be able to indicated how it knows that x >= 0 before computing sqrt(x).
The second big thing is that the language is pretty high level and you just give hints to the compiler about how to implement things (sort of like Oracle SQL) unlike Java or C++ where implementation details are definitely part of the program.
That's pretty much it.
I haven't heard of this language, and don't want to do too much research (go go procrastination!). Can anyone tell me some of the basic info about this, and what makes it different? Why would I want to use this language over something already available, for example.
Eiffel has been around for a long time, and is a mature language. What does it offer? A very clean and well designed Object Oriented language with a very clear and readable syntax and great support for Design by Contract. The principle behind Design by Contract is simple enough: objects, and methods provide contracts - providing you meet their stated requirements, the guarantee things in return. Statically typed languages offer some level of this already: you have to provide paramters of the right datatype, and it guarantees the datatype of the return type. Design by Contract essentially just extends this principle to allow for much more expressive contracts than just type signatures, and things like object invariants (properties of an object that are guaranteed not to change). The result is a much clearer statement of intention as to how code should work, and a powerful test harness that massively speeds up the test/debug cycle. In theory you can achieve this by liberally sprinkling assertions through your code. The advantage of having a language with explicit support for Design by Contract is that things like inheritance of contracts and invariants are all handled automatically and elegantly etc.
As well as this release of EiffelStudio as open source, there's SmartEiffel which is an open source Eiffel compiler (which supports a number of extra features beyond what is given in the recent ECMA spec).
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
The link for the project page goes to a wiki page with not too much information. Not to sound too much like a slashvertisement, I'm sure they would want you to also link to this page, containing more information:
http://www.eiffel.com/products/studio/
Also there should be a PDF warning on the ECMA standards link, just a thought.
What are the odds that some idiot will name his mutex ether-rot-mutex!
I'm having first year comp sci flashback! I remember at the time being taught Eiffel as my first OO langage used to teach OO techniques and design - I hated it back then it felt clunky, overly protective and claustraphobic. Now after almost 10 years as a programmer every so often I crack open the old textbooks and think "wow.. that is rather elegent and expressive". Eiffel is engineered/designed - it is deliberately not suited if all you want to do is hack about. It's funny, only yesterday I was using Eiffel as an example to my IT team as a language that forced strong contractual based interfaces.
I just can't be bothered.
In other words, Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs. I'll be damned ... that Wirth guy was right after all.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
As a language, Eiffel doesn't make it more convenient to express a problem to receive a good solution, it just makes the programmer follow the public speaker's maxim:
Programming by contract is essentially just writing twice as many unit tests, wrapped all around the code that is supposed to be doing the work. It's even easier to write bad tests when it's right next to the code being tested, so why bother?
Bertie, give it up already!
[
At least according to this website I found via the Artima.com website.
It lets you compare any two languages that have compilers in Linux and it gives you a graph of speed vs memory usage in various kinds of programming patterns such as matrix math, branchy programs, etc.
Eiffel (compiled with SmartEiffel) vs C++ (GCC 3.3.4) is actually slightly faster than C++ in almost all of the tests that the author came up with. And the memory usage is just as efficient as C++.
I've looked at Eiffel, but the syntax isn't very pretty. However, for important projects I think Eiffel will be the right language for the job.
What are the differences between Eiffel and other free object oriented programming languages? What does Eiffel have that Ruby, Python, and Java do not?
Compared to Ruby, Python and Java the biggest thing Eiffel has going for it is raw speed. Consider the benchmarks and you'll see Eiffel is much much faster than Java, with considerably less memory use. You get that sort of performance from a langauge with an exceptionally clean, well designed and engineered OO system, and great support for Design by Contract, and a very clear readable syntax: learning Eiffel is very easy.
If you're doing very dynamic work that really calls for the flexibility of Python or Ruby, then Eiffel probably isn't for you. If you want something to build robust complex large scale systems then Eiffel is actually better than Java for producing robust, well documented, reusable, maintainable code - and its faster to boot. Java, of course, has its own advantages in terms of "run anywhere" and its huge standard library, but Eiffel is well worth acquainting yourself with.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I've heard of Eiffel a number of times. The contract by design feature intrigues me; I've always wanted to try it. Well, I guess now I have more incentive. I don't think there's anything like it in the more common languages - C, Python, Java, etc. When I'm coding, I usually try to force myself to make decisions about which objects/functions are responsible for what. But it never seems to work out that way. Things decay over time.
I've wondered just how much a language can compensate for programmer laziness, carelessness, or just lack of ability. This question recently came up in a discussion. I am somewhat confident that software or languages can be designed to force good behaviour and eliminate (certain types of) mistakes. After all, there are no memory leaks in scripting languages, right? And you can't write to memory that's not yours. In lisp, it's harder to make off-by-one mistakes than in some other languages. Java forces you to handle error conditions with checked exceptions.
Yeah, I'm going to have to try this eiffel thing.
For all of those hearing about Eiffel for the first time. Back in the mid 80's, when the OO paradigm was first starting to gain traction (but it wasn't obvious that C++ would become the first mainstream object-oriented language) there were debates about whether the big OO language of the future would be C++, Smalltalk, or Eiffel.
If you want contract programming, but prefer C++ style syntax to Eiffel style, try the D programming language.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/
1) Designed for native compilation. Compare it vs. Common Lisp and C++, not the modern enterprise toys.
2) Design-by-contract. Think of it as taking type-safety squared. Just like static-typed languages are more verbose but compile-time safer than dynamic-type languages (don't argue static/dynamic, you know damn well what I mean), design-by-contract is moreso.
3) Extremely generic-oriented and had generics designed in, as opposed to the after-the-fact hacks that appeared in C++, Java, and C#. And it has multiple inheritence.
Plus, I'm also very disappointed by all the languages you listed being non-generic Algol family languages. That's like asking someone "what's your favourite beverage - Coke, Pepsi, or RC Cola?" The example languages you listed are all of the same line of descent (although Ruby pulls more from SmallTalk than the others). Plus, most of the languages you mentioned are just a mishmash of features. Eiffel is more like "Lisp" in the mentality of design, which is "keep the language simple but make it expressive enough that complex concepts can be expressed simply anyways".
Such languages tend to be much more intelligently structured, safe, and extendable, but also fall short in legibility.
Basically it is similar to Ada and C++, with a little functional programming thrown in. The problem is that most attempts to make C++ "safer" have focussed on ripping out language features like multiple inheritence and templates that made it "too complicated" but were important, useful features. Eiffel takes the alternate approach - instead of paring down the featureset, it pares down the language while actually expanding the featureset.
And if you've never coded with generics and still just typecast your container data: get out of my sight you disgusting hacker. OOP without generics is like a car that only turns left - sure you can go right, just do three lefts.
It's also worth noting that the GNU Eiffel com piler SmartEiffel provides a tool that can compiler Eiffel code to Java byte-code, so you can run Eiffel programs on a JVM too.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
You aren't remembering correctly, he went after all open source and free software. His biggest criticism of Stallman and Linus was for not distancing the free software movement from the NRA when Raymond tried to link the two (he held Stallman more responsible since Linus being a Finn might not have known what the NRA was...). He attacked FreeBSD explicitly for poor quality.
r e.html
What is funny though he lists a whole bunch of reasons vendors turn something open source that pretty much amount to "it isn't worth keeping as commercial product for reason X" where he lists the possible X's. Anyway here is a reminder:
http://www.apostate.com/programming/bm-freesoftwa
Sure, Digg can deliver some news faster, but then I prefer the depth of the userbase on Slashdot, the moderation system, the fact that it is frequented by more than just 16 year olds and of course its lovely green.
If Digg is what you want, Digg is what you should get, so piss off.
". . .the biggest thing Eiffel has going for it is raw speed."
Wikipedia's entry gives the secret to this raw speed:
"Eiffel is generally closely connected to C: three of the four Eiffel compilers output no object or machine code, but only C source code as an intermediate language, to submit to a C compiler, for optimizing and portability."
Eiffel is kind of dated. Even its successor, Sather, didn't catch on, even though Sather has been out under the GPL since 1999. There are some great ideas in there, but the language was a bit too clunky. It's kind of like Ada and Modula in that respect; the concepts are sound but the syntax is too bulky to become popular.
On the other hand, all the languages listed here protect against buffer overflows without requiring an interpretive run-time system.
The benefits of Design by Contract include the following:
Ah, and this has been demonstrated how? Programming language designers like to dream about how their features are going to lead to fewer bugs, lower costs, and all that, but there is almost no acceptable experimental data to support their claims.
Have I missed any?
By the way, here are some useful links related to the newly-open-sourced EiffelStudio, and you can find additional Eiffel libraries and tools at EiffelZone.
Paid Q&A/Research
You can acquire and release resources in many languages, too, but using the RIAA idiom in C++ you never forget the latter, while in languages that rely on finally or Dispose or whatever, you can.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Well, you opened this can of worms; so I'll close it. And by the way, I do not "hate America". On the contrary, I very much like and admire America, and almost all Americans. Which is why it depresses me so much when they write things like your last article.
h tml
"I hate everything french for all the basic reasons most people hate the french which are all more or less deeply rooted in their insurmountable arrogance".
Yeah, right. Those arrogant French, thinking they are God's chosen people! Don't they know that *Americans* are God's chosen people?
And they're a real bunch of chicken-livered, gutless surrender monkeys, too - right from Charles Martel who defeated the Arabs at the battle of Tours in 732 (preventing Europe from becoming a Muslim continent), to the heroes of the Resistance who fought on against one of the most viciously efficient repressions the world has ever known. By way of Joan of Arc, Napoleon and his soldiers who conquered Europe in about ten years (on foot), the Foreign Legion and many, many others. Not to mention Lafayette -
"In 1777, Lafayette purchased a ship, and with a crew of adventurers set sail for America to fight in the revolution against the British. Lafayette joined the ranks as a major general and was assigned to the staff of George Washington. He served with distinction, leading American forces to several victories. On a return visit to France in 1779 Lafayette persuaded the French government to send aid to the Americans. After the British surrender at Yorktown, Lafayette returned home to Paris. He had become a hero to the new nation. At home he cooperated closely with Ambassadors Benjamin Franklin, and then Thomas Jefferson in behalf of American interests". http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95sep/lafayette.
As for the "surrender" part, in September 1939 Britain and France declared war on Germany because it had invaded Poland. The USA did nothing. In 1940 Germany invaded France, launching one of the most inspired, unexpected, and vigorous surprise attacks in history. This defeated the large British and French armies, and compelled France to surrender. The USA still did nothing. At that time the US army (and other armed forces) were pathetic remnants. It took a full two years to get them up to a level at which the administration dared to enter the war. Had the USA been where France was in 1940 - right next to Germany, with a long land border - the Wehrmacht would have walked in, pulverised the US armed forces, and taken over the country with contemptuous ease. (Ask any competent American officer if you doubt this). With the Atlantic Ocean in the way, nearly two and a half extra years to get ready, about three times the population of either France or Germany, and far greater natural and industrial resources than both put together, the USA finally entered the war - but only when it was forced to because Hitler declared war on it.
As for "rescuing" France, don't be ridiculous. The USA was at war with Germany; to win, it had to invade Germany; and the only reasonable path lay through France. Taking credit for having liberated Europe, when the only reason the USA was even in the war was because the dictatorships attacked it, is the sheerest hypocrisy.
At least the French had the guts to take on Nazi Germany. The USA, which didn't dare take on Hitler, was happy to attack Saddam Hussein - a third-rate copy of Stalin, with a large army of disaffected, poorly-trained troops equipped with obsolete Soviet weapons. About as brave as a farmer going out with a combine harvester to cut a field of wheat.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.