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

[sampson@nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson)]

In article <1993Mar12.160136.6106@evb.com> pole@evb.com (Tom Pole) writes:

>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.
>
> ...
>
>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.

     What about that part of the published OO world that uses the terms
object and instance for those concepts?  The point of that rhetorical
question is, of course, OO terminology is far from fixed.  If the 9X
boys can come up with a better term, particularly if they're trying to
make it clear that the thing they've defined is not the same as the C++
thing, good for them.

     That said, I have a lot of trouble with tagged.  It's just a long-
held belief of mine that a language feature shouldn't even appear to be
suggesting its implementation.

				Charlie