From: dlindsle@afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley)
Subject: Re: OOP and large systems (was: Ada vs C++, ...)
Date: 4 Jun 91 18:56:32 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1991Jun04.185632.18204@afit.af.mil> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1991Jun1.044011.29894@netcom.COM
Ada is not an OOPL in the classic sense, no. But Ada does allow and
in fact encourage object-oriented _design_. Encapsulation (packages),
information hiding (private types), etc., are part of OOD (and OOPLs).
In other words, many of the things that make Ada suitable for working
with/on large, complex systems are those object-oriented techniques which
the language _does_ support. Given this, I find the statement that OO
(analysis? design? programming? all three?) are "largely irrelevant"
to the development of large, complex systems somewhat hard to swallow.
This doesn't mean that I believe C++ or Smalltalk (or any of the other
OOPLs) to be superior to Ada in the production of large systems. The
final word on OO{whatever} isn't in yet (IMHO) -- I await the judgment
of history on that score...
--
Dave Lindsley #24601# OPINIONS. MINE.
dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil (The words don't come no smaller.)
?? lamroN eb yhW ??
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1991-06-04 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1991-05-25 15:09 Ada vs C++, Franz Lisp to the rescue? Chuck Shotton
1991-05-30 0:41 ` Jim Showalter
1991-05-30 21:46 ` OOP and large systems (was: Ada vs C++, ...) Greg Titus
1991-06-01 4:40 ` Jim Showalter
1991-06-03 17:16 ` Greg Titus
1991-06-04 18:56 ` David T. Lindsley [this message]
1991-06-04 21:41 ` Jim Showalter
1991-06-11 18:29 ` Robert I. Eachus
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1991-06-04 1:16 Douglas Miller
1991-06-05 21:01 Larry Carroll
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox