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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE 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 11:01:14 PST Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.aero.org!jordan From: jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ichibah flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X Date: 9 Mar 1993 18:53:40 GMT Organization: The Aerospace Corporation Message-ID: <1nip3kINNb2c@news.aero.org> References: <1993Mar7.191557.5547@evb.com> <1993Mar8.153639.3603@inmet.camb.inmet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: daystrom.aero.org Date: 1993-03-09T18:53:40+00:00 List-Id: 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. 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. 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'. --Larry