Re: OOP and large systems (was: Ada vs C++, ...)

[gbt@sequoia.cray.com (Greg Titus)]

In article <1991Jun1.044011.29894@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
>
> ... [a lot of stuff we've all seen already]
>
>Well, I may have overstated the case. Taking a page from the Get Smart
>show, WOULD YOU BELIEVE: "3) OOP _may_ be largely irrelevant when it comes
>to engineering large complex systems."?  ...

You betcha.


>
> [I (gbt) said]
>>My own feeling is that we simply don't *have* a true object-oriented
>>language that is also appropriate for large systems.
>
>Ah, okay--this changes things considerably. What you (I THINK) are
>claiming is that IF there were a true object-oriented language that was also
>appropriate for engineering large systems, then it would be a better
>tool to use for such engineering than Ada but that, in the absence of
>such a beast, Ada wins by default. Or am I completely lost (wouldn't
>be the first time...).

That's it exactly.  The usefulness of a language for large systems is
based on its ability to represent a relatively clean homomorphism of the
designer's favorite decomposition of the data structures and activities
in the solution.  The decomposition is the primary thing.  The question
of whether the objects or the activites are more important is far less
important, to my mind.


>
>>Might be a neat
>>thing to work on, though ...
>
>You could ask the Ada 9x people how neat they think things have been
>for them. ;-)

Perhaps I should have emphasized the "might".   ;-)   They are somewhat
constrained, I'm afraid.

greg
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Titus (gbt@zia.cray.com)             Compiler Group (Ada)
Cray Research, Inc.                               Santa Fe, NM
Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own.