Re: ada-c++ productivity

[jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan)]

"Something's" missing from this definition of OOP--Dynamic binding.
(also, OOPs don't require classes--see SELF).  I'd say we dismiss
the term OOP and talk about langs in term of features.

Inh. and dyn. binding are not enough.  There are other language
features I find desirable--parameterized types and exceptions.  What 
about library management?  What about environements with integrated 
debuggers? (I'd sure hate to build anything bigger than a hello world 
program without a library manager.  ).  Some may finding tasking essential.  
I did a comparison of lang. features a while back.  Some may find 
this interesting. 

Language	Inheritance	DynamicBnd'g	Type[T]	Except.	Task 	LibMgr
C++		yes-MI/class	yes-vft		no[1]	no[2]	no	hand
Objective-C	yes-SI/class	yes-tlu		no	no	no	hand
Smalltalk	yes-SI/class	yes-tlu		no	no	no	?
SELF		yes-MI/object	yes-?		no	no	no	?
TP6.0		yes-SI/class	yes-vft		no	no	no	auto
Eiffel		yes-MI/class	yes-vft		yes	yes	no	auto
Ada		yes[3]		no		no[4]	yes	yes	auto

MI=mult. inh.
SI=single inh.
vft=virtual function tables
tlu=run-time table lookup with caching
class=class-based inh.
object=object-based inh.
hand=hand crank a make file
auto=automated
?=don't know

[1] available next version
[2] available next version?
[3] derived types are not assignment compatible without casting.
[4] parameterized procedures and packages but not types		

I hate the C'ness of C++, but I find myself implementing many things in
C++ just because of inheritance and dynamic binding.  If Ada is ever
to become mainstream (and I seriously hope it does) inheritance and
dyn. binding had better be incorporated into the language.

--Larry