From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:5800 comp.object:3790 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!aria!dumbcat!marc From: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us (Marco S Hyman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.object Subject: Re: Difference between inheritance and package use Message-ID: <1065@dumbcat.sf.ca.us> Date: 24 Jun 91 03:32:35 GMT References: <1991Jun23.030631.8027@netcom.COM> Followup-To: comp.lang.ada Organization: MH Software, Hayward, CA. List-Id: In article <1991Jun23.030631.8027@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: > Indeed. The problem with this is, if I'm trying to build a damned TRACTOR, > why on earth would I want to have to drag around the entire tree of Things > That Move Through Spacetime just to do so? Yes yes yes--I understand the > notion of reuse, but I can reuse pistons and wristpins and all the > subcomponents used to build a tractor (this, last time I looked, was sort > of how most stuff WAS built), so in what way is this better or worse? You're right. You don't want to drag around the entire tree ... I assume (oh ohh) that you're getting the components for your TRACTOR from a library. Building a library is hard. Check out "Designing C++ Libraries" in the USENIX C++ Conference Proceedings, San Francisco, 1990, by James M. Coggins. I thing the points he makes are somewhat language independent. In particular, that comprehensive, monolithic class libraries are a bad thing AND that a toolkit of tiny classes is also a bad thing. I can read "PACKAGE" for "class." Something in between is needed. // marc -- // home: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us pacbell!dumbcat!marc // work: marc@ascend.com uunet!aria!marc