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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utai.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!lamy From: lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) Newsgroups: net.lang.st80,net.lang.ada Subject: Re: Smalltalk-80 as an Ada software environment Message-ID: <2203@utai.UUCP> Date: Thu, 28-Aug-86 12:34:39 EDT Article-I.D.: utai.2203 Posted: Thu Aug 28 12:34:39 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 31-Aug-86 08:51:13 EDT Reply-To: lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto List-Id: In article <254@linus.UUCP> sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes: >3. Software reusability, by taking a Smalltalk class hierarchy and > constructing its Ada equivalent (using Ada > packages and compilation order semantics). (You would > build a prototype/model class hierarchy in Smalltalk, and > after modelling/simulation convinced you it was OK, you would > then transliterate it to the corresponding Ada equivalent > for the final product.) At first glance this is going to be very hard. Emulating "virtual" routines (i.e. when a subclass' routines redefines the superclass') is not elegant not efficient (requires heavy and dirty use of generics). Ada just isn't a good object-oriented language. Jean-Francois Lamy AI Group, Dept of Computer Science CSNet: lamy@ai.toronto.edu University of Toronto EAN: lamy@ai.toronto.cdn Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 1A4 UUCP: lamy@utai.uucp -- Jean-Francois Lamy AI Group, Dept of Computer Science CSNet: lamy@ai.toronto.edu University of Toronto EAN: lamy@ai.toronto.cdn Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 1A4 UUCP: lamy@utai.uucp