Re: Ichibah flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X

[pole@evb.com (Tom Pole)]

In article <EMERY.93Mar10174143@dr_no.mitre.org> emery@dr_no.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
>>A class in CLOS, smalltalk and C++ are not identical already.
>>The argument that if Ada uses the word "class" then it has
>>to be exactly like C++'s implementation of a class doesn't
>>hold water. 
>
>What percentage of practicing C++ programmers know CLOS and/or
>SmallTalk?  My experience (direct and indirect, including the several
>places my wife has worked recently) is "few".  Sure, there are people
>who know multiple languages.  In this case, Ada's tagged types would
>also be a reasonable concept (akin to Modula-3).  But, for the great
>masses of C++ programmers, the word "class" means "C++ class", and I
>believe their reaction is "different is wrong".
>				dave

I have enjoyed this battle up to this point, without participating.
Now I can't resist the comment. Who Cares (only) what the average C++
programmer thinks. (In this discussion, not in all matters, I have
nothing against C++ programmers, some of my best friends are... etc.)
C++ is not the only OOPL used in software development, nor will it
ever be. If Ada disappears tomorrow (DOD forbid), there will still
be serious development done in Smalltalk, Eiffel, and CLOS.
If Ada is to break into the commercial OOPL market in more than
a token way, it must present the OO programmer with an OOPL, not
just try to compete with C++. Most OO programmers have mutual
respect for each other's favorite languages, AND have a common
shop-talk language to discuss the compartive benefits of each.
This shop-talk includes class, but not tagged types.

If Ada wants to attract/convince/whatever programmers to use Ada, and 
that it is truly an OOPL, then Ada should use the accepted (de facto standard)
terminology of OORequirements Analysis, OODesign, OOetc.

A class is a class. If Ada wants to add the ability to have 
inheritance/specialization similar to what is available in other
OOPL's, the OO world calls the common definition
of a type which supports specialization a class, and instantiations
of that type objects. Ada can use the same terms if it wishes.

If Ada wants to add the ability to have specialization
but keep it a secret that only Ada initiates understand, then
call it some obscure, uncommon, semantically weak term like tagged
types. There is not a theasaurus in the world that is going to relate
any of the terms class, inhertance, inheritable type, specialization,
or object oriented with the word tagged.

The only other software related use of tagged types I know of refers to 
the tagged types implemented in hardware for Lisp machines. Haven't
heard that term used lately.

Thomas Pole
All opinions are my own, unless I can find someone else
to blame them on.
-- 

Thomas Pole