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_40,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!software.org!blakemor From: blakemor@software.org (Alex Blakemore) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: c++ vs ada results Keywords: Booch parts considered ok not great Message-ID: <1991Jun27.154759.21840@software.org> Date: 27 Jun 91 15:47:59 GMT References: <1991Jun25.002928.16897@eve.wright.edu> <3812@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> <1991Jun26.224737.16660@netcom.COM> Organization: Software Productivity Consortium, Herndon, Virginia List-Id: Somebody said (sorry I lost the name :( >>Seriously, what I find disconcerting is that his abstractions have a >>strange feel to them. They don't reflect the way I think about objects, >>so using them is a bit too much of an effort. (This is an important >>issue in program/library design!) Jim Showalter replied >I would be interested in an elaboration of this point, since I am hard >pressed to imagine what you find disconcerting or strange about the >components--they're just things like lists and queues and rings and I agree with the first poster. After using them on and off for a couple years, I have lost enthusiasm. The simple things like lists and sets add more complexity to the client code than they take away in many cases. The complex structures have a very strange interface that makes using them very awkward and in some cases error prone. The tree packages are a prime example, try explaining set_child or swap_child sometime. They're a nice attempt but I cant believe this is the end ot the rainbow. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Blakemore blakemore@software.org (703) 742-7125 Software Productivity Consortium 2214 Rock Hill Rd, Herndon VA 22070