From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 4 Jun 91 01:16:55 GMT From: mintaka!think.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!csv.viccol.edu.au!dougcc@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Douglas Miller) Subject: Re: OOP and large systems (was: Ada vs C++, ...) Message-ID: <1991Jun3.201656.6692@csv.viccol.edu.au> List-Id: In article <085657.19195@timbuk.cray.com>, gbt@sequoia.cray.com (Greg Titus) writes: > In article <1991May30.004144.24252@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim > Showalter) writes: >> [Somebody else writes:] >>>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. >> >>Now, far be it from me to actually MAKE this claim [;-)], I'm merely >>pointing out that it is the inevitable subtext of the above paragraph. > > 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." What is a "large complex OO system", as opposed to a large complex system developed useing OO? You appear to be assuming what Jim has asked to be shown. > My own feeling is that we simply don't *have* a true object-oriented > language that is also appropriate for large systems. Might be a neat > thing to work on, though ... You have definitely missed the point. Jim want to know how useful "true" OO features (inheritance et al) are to large-scale development as compared with those boring old OO features (static data abstraction et al). So do I. Does anyone have any evidence one way or the other? -- Douglas Miller Phone: +61 3 805 3262 Fax: +61 3 808 9497 Post: Computer Services, Victoria College, BURWOOD 3125, AUSTRALIA Location: Building A, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria, Australia