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!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!netcomsv!jls From: jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OOP and large systems (was: Ada vs C++, ...) Message-ID: <1991Jun1.044011.29894@netcom.COM> Date: 1 Jun 91 04:40:11 GMT References: <0D010010.vk2p2d@brain.UUCP> <1991May30.004144.24252@netcom.COM> <085657.19195@timbuk.cray.com> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest} List-Id: Our story thus far: >>>I won't argue the point that Ada is far superior when it comes to large system >>>development. This is a fact, plain and simple, and C++ cannot hold a candle >>>to Ada's abilities to decompose a problem into managable pieces and insure >>>the consistency between them. However, Ada is not all things to all programming >>>tasks, and one of the things it isn't is an object oriented programming >>>language. >> >>>From the above paragraph, we have these two statements: >> >>1) Ada is a superior language for engineering large complex systems. >>2) Ada is not particularly supportive of OOP. >> >>These two statements lead to the following conclusion: >> >>3) OOP is largely irrelevant when it comes to engineering large complex systems. >I don't see that, Jim. I'd replace your 3) with "Ada is not the best >language when it comes to engineering large complex OO systems." >(Replace "not the best language" with "largely irrelevant" if you want >to retain the strength of your original conclusion.) 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."? I think I can support this one pretty easily: we have already established from 1) above that Ada is a superior language for engineering large complex systems, and from 2) we admit that Ada is not an OOP language [at least not in the classic sense of the term], and so we have the apparent paradox of large complex systems being superiorly engineered using a non-OOP language. This certainly makes ME suspect that OOP must not be particularly important when it comes to engineering large complex systems. >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...). >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. ;-) -- **************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 **************** *Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects* *of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/* *reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++. *