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: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: "Charles R. Lyttle" Subject: Re: ADA and Pascal work, C,C++, and Java are the only lheadaches you need!! Date: 1997/11/08 Message-ID: <346499D7.CCBB53DD@flash.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 287919254 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <34566fe9.447229@news.mindspring.com> <345673af.1413708@news.mindspring.com> <3456b9f3.0@news.eznet.net> <3456e71b.3833189@news.mindspring.com> <34591365.7E53@gsg.eds.com> <3462889F.625B4D36@flash.net> Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1997-11-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John Stevens wrote: > On Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:18:55 -0600, Charles R. Lyttle wrote: > >John Stevens wrote: > >> I may, in fact, be impossible to create anything other than a semi-OO > >> language, or at best, a Hybrid OO language, with out starting from > >> a blank slate. > >> > >> John S. > > > >Ada was not an OO language. It was Object Based. Quiet a difference and the > >difference was deliberate. > > Why so? > Ada used objects to collect code and data into a single component. It did not support inheritance. The OO purist insisted that you could not call a language Object Oriented unless it supported all the latest features of every individual theory of what constituted OO. No two theorist seemed to agree as to what OO meant, so Ada proponents adopted the term Object Based which prevents a lot of argument. > >Many of the OO constructs make any big appliation > >"brittle" and reduce safety. > > How so? > With multiple inheritance, for example, a change in a line of code can propagate side effects through out a system. Because of the complex cross connections that exist with multiple inheritance, it is can be nearly impossible to maintain a system over time. Fixing a bug in one class by modifying an ancestor class can induce new bugs in decedent classes way out in left field. > >I am not fully convienced that all the Ada95 > >changes were a good idea, but they do make it more Object Oriented and it is > >still a lot better than C++. > > If Ada is the language best suited to producing portable, sold, safe > programs, and OO constructs make an application brittle, then why > would the new standard include them? > > Seems like they lost track of their purpose. > I think so. > >Have you noticed that as time goes by, Ada looks > >more like C++ and C++ looks more like Ada? I mean Templates for pity sake. > > Templates. Fagh! This is something I never use. > IMHO, the template concept is a good idea. They correspond approximately to the Ada generics. It is just the C++ implementation that sucks. > To allow portability to the greatest number of compilers, I try never to > use stuff that sits to close to the "edge", if you know what I mean. > > John S. The old proverb was "Be not the first to discard the old, nor the last to accept the new." There is a balance to becoming a stick-in-the-mud and chasing the latest hype into never-never land. -- Russ Lyttle email : lyttlec@mail.flash.net