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

[wellerd@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (David Weller)]

In article <1nip3kINNb2c@news.aero.org> jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) writes:
>I must agree with the recent posts that express concern over
>Ada 9X's OOP features not be recognized as such.  I'm not an 
>'average' programmer (I know Ada, C++, Turbo Pascal, a number 
>of Modula-2s with OOP, Oberon-2).  Yet, I had no little difficulty 
>reading the Ada 9X rationale and understanding just how 9X will 
>support OOP.
>

Indeed, it IS a nontrivial document aimed at the Ada fluent (and
C++/CLOS/Smalltalk fluent, to a degree).  I'm not so sure this 
makes it a Bad Thing.  There has been considerable discussion
about simplifying the Rationale (right, Tuck?).

>I think introducing the keyword 'tagged' is a mistake.  It sure
>didn't facilitate my understanding.  It wasn't until I read
>the paper by Dismukes and Rome that I realized, 'Oh, this
>isn't so different after all.'  My impression (and it may be only
>mine) is that 'tagged' is an implementation detail that has
>somehow leaked out.  What an ugly word it is (and how many times 
>will it be misspelled!--one 'g' or two?).  Ichbiah's suggestion
>seems preferable.
>

Yeah, and I've lost count of how many Ada programmers I've taught
that can't spell seperate(sic) :-)

Tucker would be quick to point out that the word "record" is also
an implementation detail, but that it's become generally accepted
in the programming domain.  Frankly, I don't care for the word
"tagged" either, but "class" doesn't fit in its place.  Do you 
have an alternate suggestion?

One other thing that's bothered me -- why are we raising such a fuss
about the word "tagged" to mean "this record may have it's state
description extended"?  Perhaps we're being pedantic?  Where were 
such arguments when the "C" language reference said "*" means
"pointer"?  :-)   (Smiley for the humor impaired)

>There will probably be better sources for learning Ada 9X OOP
>features (there probably are now).  But at the time, the rationale was
>all I had.  Maybe a book/monograph needs to be written that's palatable
>to the pop programming culture, speaking to them at their level, an
>'Ada 9X Primer'?!  Until there is, I'm afraid that Ada 9X OOP
>will be preceived as something 'unfamiliar'.
>

If you'll look in the Ada 9X Project Plan (whatever), you'll
see there's TWO 9X primers: one for the Ada literate and one for
the "Real Language" impaired :-)  I believe there's also a
plan for video tapes (hopefully it will be a little more lively
than the ones Alsys sold back in the mid 80's).  I'm not sure
of the release dates for the primers, but I'm sure it won't be before
the ANSI acceptance of 9X.

>--Larry
>

dgw