Re: procedural vs object oriented

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:22:21 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> "bh" <no-spam@nosuchaddress.com> writes:
>> "Ananth the Boss" <anboss@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146039364.130635.181590@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>> i am working in Ada based flight software development project.as a
>>> means of improving i took to the CASE tool based development.ours is a
>>> procedural approach of development.but the commercial CASE tools speak
>>> a lot about class/object/UML.how will this suit for procedure oriented
>>> development where we dont have necessity to identify classes and do
>>> detailed design as mentioned in OO aproach
>>
>> If you don't _know_ how to do good OO with Ada, I'd recommend against it.
>> We tried a project using OO and I think it is pretty safe to say we didn't
>> get what we were hoping for. I think your results will be better with
>> procedural.
> 
> According to Robert Dewar during FOSDEM, nobody uses OOP in avionics
> software, because the uncertainty inherent to dynamic dispatching
> hinders certification.  Is someone on this newsgroup in a position to
> give a counter-example?

Can't tell about avionics, but what uncertainty of dynamic dispatching is
meant? Or, maybe, "certification" is the context of? Then which
certification, according to which criteria?

Talking about uncertainty in general, what about "inherent uncertainty" of
a procedure call? Can you tell which procedures will be called and when at
run time? If you can then, you can also do it for dispatching calls. Are
generic bodies more certain? With "with function "*" (Left, Right : Foo)
return Foo"? Really?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de