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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!udecc.engr.udayton.edu!blackbird.afit.af.mil!dlindsle
From: dlindsle@afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: OOP and large systems (was: Ada vs C++, ...)
Message-ID: <1991Jun04.185632.18204@afit.af.mil>
Date: 4 Jun 91 18:56:32 GMT
References: <0D010010.vk2p2d@brain.UUCP> <1991May30.004144.24252@netcom.COM> <085657.19195@timbuk.cray.com> <1991Jun1.044011.29894@netcom.COM>
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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 ??