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

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

In article <1993Mar9.174925.29392@ennews.eas.asu.edu> koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Harry Koehnemann) writes:
>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.

Oh, you and I are tekkies. I mean the project managers, the ones who get
to make the decisions. Some of them even have gold braid on their starched
shirts.
>
>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.

Correct. 'Course the OO texts have picked up on a recent bit of jargon.
They may not have a monopoly on truth; they've just co-opted the buzzwords.
>
>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?

You are obviously not in the category of folks I was referring to.
>
>>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.
>
The folks I mean are not in "the OO community." I meant what I said QUITE
LITERALLY: they know little about OO but somebody, somewhere, told them
that C++ could do it and Ada couldn't. They haven't got the foggiest idea
whether Objects, Classes, Inheritance, etc., would make a damn bit of 
difference in the cost-effectveness of their project. But somebody told
'em that OO was the greatest thing since sliced bread, reason enough
to fight the Ada Mandate. Arrant nonsense. But it's out there. It's
enough to make your hair stand on end. And it's your tax money and mine.

Mike