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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/05 Message-ID: <34103462.1D86@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270002889 Sender: usenet@most.fw.hac.com (News Administration) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: sparc01 References: <340F20A0.49B5@ac3i.dseg.ti.com> <340F39E3.4B71@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: Hughes Defense Communications Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Patrick Doyle wrote: > > >Hear, hear! Why would an Eiffel programmer want to simulate Ada, when > >he/she could actually use Ada? (And vice versa, lest anyone think > >I'm making another language-bigot comment...) > > > >The discussion of language merits is not served by either side > >trying to avoid consideration of a difference by offering a kludgy > >workaround of the other language's feature. > > Being the one who seems to be pursuing this quest, I'll explain > myself. > > I'm not trying to emulate Ada. Creating an interface that can be > frozen for programmers to work against is a very important thing. > On first glance, it seems there's no easy way to do that in Eiffel, > .... and so the Ada people have a great deal of experience > with this methodology; so I was asking them about using deferred > classes because presumably they'd be the best ones to find the > flaws in the deferred class methodology. Well, your rationale for the question is valid. I was responding to those who want to deny that a good feature language X is not an advantage because language Y can accomplish the same thing by an unintended use of features it DOES have. Those are the folks that first brought up the idea. It happens on the Ada side, too. "Multiple inheritance is not important because we can simulate it this way." What the Ada advocate should say is one of (1) "We think MI is bad because" OR (2) "We looked at the _goal_ of multiple inheritance and decided that _goal_ could be better acheived by..." OR (3) "OK, we'll let you have that as an advantage of your language." -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ----------------------------------------------------------------------