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

[mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)]

In article <1993Mar15.231916.16276@ennews.eas.asu.edu> koehnema@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Harry Koehnemann) writes:
>
>I'll contend that translating an OO design into the Ada paradigm is not
>a straight forward activity for someone raised on these other languages
>(if it is a straight forward activity at all).  It is certainly not as
>trivial as making the transition from pointers to access types (if you
>can call "access" = "pointer" a transition).
>
C'mon, guys. Have you ever tried to get a Fortranner to understand
records?  It's not easy but eventually they get it. Have you ever tried
to explain to a Fortranner why Ada does not require that 2-d arrays be
mapped column-by-column? Sure it's a transition, but so what?

If in fact an OO design (in the C++ sense) can't be mapped easily into
Ada9X (and I am still waiting for a real demonstration that this is so),
where is it written that the C++-oriented design was the right one?
Read Rosen's paper on composition vs. class hierarchies (CACM 11/92).

Each new generation of languages brings with it a new set of terms and
a somewhat changed paradigm. Programmers who are raised on Ada have no
trouble with Ada terminology. And the others - IF they are open-minded -
learn it eventually. I've taught Ada to maybe a thousand industry folks
and maybe two thousand university students, and I'm persuaded from that
10 years of experience that an open mind is the most important 
prerequisite. Old Fortran programmers will learn to use Ada well IF
they so desire. Young, geeky C types will not, IF their minds are closed.

So what else is new? Openminded people learn more.

The point of the OO changes to Ada9X was to add new technology to the
language. Technical considerations presumably were more important than
marketing ease. I think Tucker has made the case for tagged types
as a _smooth_ extension from Ada83 and classes as a rather messier one.
Dontcha think it's time to just quit trying to fight a losing battle?
Ada9X-style OOP is in the language. Quit trying to make Ada9X look like
C++, Eiffel, or what have you. Go back to work already.

I am STILL waiting to see a _real_ example of a design of a _real_ system
that is better enough in C++ than it is in Ada to make it worth all this
fuss over terminology. We all know that tagged types vs. classes is NOT
the reason why Ada9X will fail (if indeed it will fail). I'm not going
into all that again.

It's much easier just to trash Ada than to come up with a design that
shows the flaws.

Cheers -

Mike Feldman