From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7251fa99aab97e06 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-09 12:43:14 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!gumby!yale!yale.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!enuxha.eas.asu.edu!koehnema From: koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Harry Koehnemann) Subject: Re: Ichibah flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X Message-ID: <1993Mar9.174925.29392@ennews.eas.asu.edu> Followup-To: comp.lang.ada Sender: news@ennews.eas.asu.edu (USENET News System) Reply-To: koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Harry Koehnemann) Organization: Arizona State University References: <1993Mar7.191557.5547@evb.com> <1993Mar8.153639.3603@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <1993Mar8.162831.8767@seas.gwu.edu> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1993 17:49:25 GMT Date: 1993-03-09T17:49:25+00:00 List-Id: In article <1993Mar8.162831.8767@seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: >I meet too many people who describe OOP as follows: "I don't know much >about it, but whatever it is, it's that stuff C++ can do and Ada can't." Hmmm. Most the OO people I know talk about OO as "objects, classes, and inheritance" and discuss objects as active entities (rather than passive as they are with tagged types). I don't mean to downplay the work done on 9X and I personally haven't resolved the "Classes vs. Type Extensions" question yet, but these are likely arguments you're going to get from the OO community. Every OO text I know of defines an OO language as Objects, Classes, and Inheritance. Granted type extensions yield a form of classification, but it is not as evident as it is in a language with a construct called "class". And, we have yet to determined whether that form of classification is as useful as a class. Second, OO principles are very big on objects being active. I write Obj.Operation rather than Operation(Obj). In fact, people have hinted at Ada83 being OO because of the tasking mechanism, simply because it uses hte proper notation (and that tasks have an internal thread of control). How does my OO design translate into a language where objects aren't active? >It's high time to change this culture of ignorance. It starts in the >schools and works its way outward. The Ada83 "in group" missed this point. >Thank Heaven that the Ada9X "in group" seems (_seems_) to be getting it. >We shall see... I agree completely. If you're going to sell Ada as object-oriented, you'd better be prepared to defend that statment. I disagree with your assessment of the OO community. Most of them really know their shit when it comes to OOness and we sure as hell don't want to loose arguments because we are ignorant of the facts. I'm just getting prepared for what's likely ahead. Adios. -- Harry Koehnemann Arizona State University koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.edu Computer Science Department