Standadised OO Language

Standadised OO Language

[Matthew Daniel]

After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.

I was just wondering if I was correct or totally wrong.

Thanks

Matt

Re: Standadised OO Language

[Jon S Anthony]

Matthew Daniel <matt@adelaide.on.net> writes:

> After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
> Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
> said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
> an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.
> 
> I was just wondering if I was correct or totally wrong.

Neither.

C++ definitely has _NOT_ had _any_ standard 6months ago let alone 2
years ago.  The guy is a clueless fool.

I've heard (a rumor) that within the last couple of months (maybe
December) the latest draft C++ proposal (not the old one that was
laying around for the last 2-3 years) was accepted.  I don't know if
this is really true and if so if it is ANSI or ISO.

OTOH, Common Lisp/CLOS was (AFAIK) the first true standardized OO
language (1994 as opposed to Ada's 1995), though it was ANSI and not
ISO.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: Standadised OO Language

[Howard W. LUDWIG]

Jon S Anthony wrote:
> 
> Matthew Daniel <matt@adelaide.on.net> writes:
> 
> > After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
> > Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
> > said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
> > an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.
> >
> > I was just wondering if I was correct or totally wrong.
> 
> Neither.
> 
> C++ definitely has _NOT_ had _any_ standard 6months ago let alone 2
> years ago.  The guy is a clueless fool.
> 
> I've heard (a rumor) that within the last couple of months (maybe
> December) the latest draft C++ proposal (not the old one that was
> laying around for the last 2-3 years) was accepted.  I don't know if
> this is really true and if so if it is ANSI or ISO.
> 
> OTOH, Common Lisp/CLOS was (AFAIK) the first true standardized OO
> language (1994 as opposed to Ada's 1995), though it was ANSI and not
> ISO.
> 
> --
> Jon Anthony

Perhaps some specific dates and details would help:

CLOS (Common Lisp Object System)
  1994-12-08  ANSI X3.226:1994
  ----------  has not become an ISO standard

ISLISP (which I know very little about and haven't kept up with any
details, 
        other than it is supposed to be neither a subset nor a superset
of CLOS!!!)
  1997-??-??  ISO 13816:1997
  ----------  has not become an ANSI standard

[Thus, Lisp has the dubious distinction of being one of the few
languages for 
which both an ANSI standard and an ISO standard exist but they never
have matched 
nor does there seem to be any attempt to harmonize them.]

Ada
  1994-11-01  Final ISO draft approved
  1995-02-15  ISO/IEC 8652:1995 publication
  1995-04-10  ANSI approval for ANSI/ISO/IEC 8652:1995

[Thus, the dates show that CLOS became an ANSI standard after approval
of final 
ISO draft for Ada but before ISO publication.  Generally, CLOS is given
credit 
for being first overall, but Ada beat it (and all other OO languages) to
ISO 
approval.]

C++
  1997-11-14  Final ISO _Draft_ International Standard DIS 14882
approved unanimously
  1998-early  Final (hopefully) balloting on final draft
  1998-late   ISO publication expected
              ANSI assumedly will follow.

[It should be noted that earlier votes on C++ were contentious.  Minimum
(but 
with significant impact for compilers) acceptable fixes were made,
resulting 
in a unanimous approval of the final Committee Draft, with several
country 
representatives holding their nose with the attitude that the final
version 
had significant problems but was better than continuing the state of
_no_ 
standard.  Based on this, it seems very likely that the remaining steps
of 
ISO standardization will be formalities and, assumedly, ANSI will
follow.  
Compilers will take a while to catch up to the standard and mature, just
as 
they did for Ada.]

Regarding the original issue, apparently a debate over whether C++ is at 
the same level of standardization and maturity as Ada 95:

Ada 95 has been a published ISO standard for 3 years now (well, after
two 
more days, actually :), and this version is a revision of a previous ISO 
standard.  Mature compilers from several vendors for several
[understatement] 
platforms are available in a _validated_ form.  The validation process
for 
Ada 95 compilers has been growing in rigor, following a transition time
of 
relative laxness from Ada 83 to Ada 95.  GNAT, which runs on a wide
variety 
of platforms, implements the full (including all optional annexes)
language 
and passes _all_ relevant validation tests.

C++, on the other hand, is going through its first rigorous
standardization 
process.  It has achieved only Final _Draft_ International Standard
phase, 
not final approval and publication.  Compiler vendors are scrambling to 
incorporate the new features that have been added or changed over the 
last two to three years.  We can expect it will be 2000 before complete, 
compliant compilers are available with any degree of maturity (allowing 
the same two-year interval from completion of settling on a standard to 
compiler compliance which was the case for Ada and is typical for other
languages as well).  There is no mechanism in place to assure compliance 
of compilers to the standard (like Ada validation).  Since it is
expected 
that a revision to the C standard will be approved in 1999 or 2000 and 
C++ has been intricately coupled in structure with C [which is a whole 
other issue and a can of worms in itself], the C++ folks are already 
talking about mechanisms for C++ compiler vendors to modify their C++ 
compilers to handle the revisions to the C standard without adjusting 
the C++ standard!?#!  Wow!  What does it mean to have an ISO C++
standard 
document, then?  So much for compilers stabilizing and maturing in 2000, 
and so long portability!  What a deal!  Lots of suckers thinking so and 
grabbing it.

Howard W. LUDWIG
Working, but not speaking, for Lockheed Martin Electronics & Missiles
Co.

Re: Standadised OO Language

[Brian Rogoff]

On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Howard W. LUDWIG wrote:
> Perhaps some specific dates and details would help:
> 
> CLOS (Common Lisp Object System)
>   1994-12-08  ANSI X3.226:1994
>   ----------  has not become an ISO standard

To be precise (this is the Ada newsgroup after all :-), one should say 
"Common Lisp", not CLOS, as CLOS is just an object system sitting on top 
of the objectless ANSI CL subset. 

> ISLISP (which I know very little about and haven't kept up with any
> details, 
>         other than it is supposed to be neither a subset nor a superset
> of CLOS!!!)
>   1997-??-??  ISO 13816:1997
>   ----------  has not become an ANSI standard

Never finished, supposedly based on EuLisp, a nice clean Lisp which never
went anywhere. Its a sort of reaction to the fact that Common Lisp was 
originally an all-American, or rather all-USA grass roots effort to
synthesize a Lisp out of the extant US Lisps. EuLisp was a brand new
design somewhere between Scheme and Common Lisp in the design space.
Some of the story is in the HOPL-II proceedings.

> [Thus, Lisp has the dubious distinction of being one of the few
> languages for 
> which both an ANSI standard and an ISO standard exist but they never
> have matched 
> nor does there seem to be any attempt to harmonize them.]

Last time I looked ISO Lisp wasn't finished, so I'm not sure if this is 
true. I'll look at the ISO web page when I have a web connection. 
> 
> Ada 95 has been a published ISO standard for 3 years now (well, after
> two 
> more days, actually :), and this version is a revision of a previous ISO 
> standard.  Mature compilers from several vendors for several
> [understatement] 
> platforms are available in a _validated_ form.  The validation process
> for 
> Ada 95 compilers has been growing in rigor, following a transition time
> of 
> relative laxness from Ada 83 to Ada 95.  GNAT, which runs on a wide
> variety 
> of platforms, implements the full (including all optional annexes)
> language 
> and passes _all_ relevant validation tests.
> There is no mechanism in place to assure compliance  of compilers to the
> standard (like Ada validation).  

This is a big plus for Ada, much more important IMO than whether an ANSI
or ISO standard exists.

> Since it is expected 
> that a revision to the C standard will be approved in 1999 or 2000 and 
> C++ has been intricately coupled in structure with C [which is a whole 
> other issue and a can of worms in itself], the C++ folks are already 
> talking about mechanisms for C++ compiler vendors to modify their C++ 
> compilers to handle the revisions to the C standard without adjusting 
> the C++ standard!?#!

Excellent point, which I hadn't really thought of. Of course, it may also
entail some slight modification to Annex B of Ada 95. 

As Robert Dewar pointed out, none of this is likely to sway anyone who has
already decided that they "hate" language X, where X is Ada, C++, Lisp, or 
whatever. I know I prefer Ada over C++, but C++ has some nice ideas too.

-- Brian

Re: Standadised OO Language

[William Clodius]

Jon S Anthony wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> I've heard (a rumor) that within the last couple of months (maybe
> December) the latest draft C++ proposal (not the old one that was
> laying around for the last 2-3 years) was accepted.  I don't know if
> this is really true and if so if it is ANSI or ISO.
> <snip>

I sometimes follow the comp.std.c++ newsgroup. On jointly developed
standards ANSI approval is usually conditional on ISO approval. The
standardization committees late last year submitted a draft for the
final stages of the ISO approval process. The submission was approved
unaminously, and, because the ISO members usually rely on their
representatives on the low level committees for their opinions on the
draft, unaminous approval probably indicates that the final stage will
not be controversial.  However, even if it is not controversial, it can
be time consuming (I believe that the ISO mislaid the original C++
paperwork delaying things by a couple of months, and ISO approval is
often conditional on some minor changes), so that it will likely be late
this year when it is officially published.

-- 

William B. Clodius		Phone: (505)-665-9370
Los Alamos Nat. Lab., NIS-2     FAX: (505)-667-3815
PO Box 1663, MS-C323    	Group office: (505)-667-5776
Los Alamos, NM 87545            Email: wclodius@lanl.gov

Re: Standadised OO Language

[Kenneth W. Sodemann]

Jon S Anthony wrote in message ...
>
>I've heard (a rumor) that within the last couple of months (maybe
>December) the latest draft C++ proposal (not the old one that was
>laying around for the last 2-3 years) was accepted.  I don't know if
>this is really true and if so if it is ANSI or ISO.
>

According to my reading of the "C/C++ Users Journal", it is an ANSI and ISO
standard, and the final draft was accepted in early November of 1997.
Barring any major problems, we now _finally_ have a C++ standard (insert big
cheer here!).

Of course, the lack of a standard hasn't been that big of a deal for me WRT
C++, since for the C++ related work I have done, the only VALID standard has
been "whatever MS does"! :)  Of course for those using C++ on non-MS
platforms, that is not true (most of my non-Windows work has been done in
Ada, so the lack of a standard hasn't been an issue for me there either).

--
Ken Sodemann
stufflehead@bigfoot.com
http://www.pcii.net/~stuffel
Go 23, 24, 36, & ABE.  Go Pack!!

Re: Standadised OO Language

[Kenneth W. Sodemann]

Matthew Daniel wrote in message <34E2D3D9.B2F1F398@adelaide.on.net>...
>After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
>Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
>said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
>an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.
>
>I was just wondering if I was correct or totally wrong.
>


You are wrong, and so is your friend.  C++ does have an ANSI standard,
however it was only ratified within the last couple of months (the first
announcement I saw of it was in last months "C/C++ Users Journal").

I would also be surprised if some other OO language (like Smalltalk) were
not standardized, but I cannot speak to that, as the two main languages I
work with are Ada and C++.

--
Ken Sodemann
stufflehead@bigfoot.com
http://www.pcii.net/~stuffel
Go 23, 24, 36, & ABE.  Go Pack!!

Re: Standadised OO Language

[David Weller]

In article <6bur94$k8n$1@news3.alpha.net>,
Kenneth W. Sodemann <stufflehead@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Matthew Daniel wrote in message <34E2D3D9.B2F1F398@adelaide.on.net>...
>>After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
>>Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
>>said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
>>an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.
>>
>You are wrong, and so is your friend.  C++ does have an ANSI standard,
>however it was only ratified within the last couple of months (the first
>announcement I saw of it was in last months "C/C++ Users Journal").
>
>I would also be surprised if some other OO language (like Smalltalk) were
>not standardized, but I cannot speak to that, as the two main languages I
>work with are Ada and C++.
>

Get ready to be surprised.  :-)

The first problem is, whose standard?  ANSI standards are
(comparatively) easier to get than an ISO standard.  Ada95 is an ISO
standard and has been for the last three years.  Smalltalk is in the
process of ANSI standardization, but it's a LONG way from approval.
C++ is now in the final stages of getting ISO standardization, but it
will most likely be December before it becomes published, maybe 1999.
I remember laughing when C++ people were saying it'd be standardized
by 1994.  :-)

Anyway, at this exact moment, the number of ISO standardized OO
languages is one: Ada95.  That will change, perhaps by this year.

ANSI standardization, it should be noted, has little meaning outside
the United States (and usually has little meaning within the US also
:-)
-- 
   ******   NEW!!  DoD Ada Hotline Number:  1-800-PARIAH    ******
Tired of "junk" e-mail?  Write to your congressman and tell them you support
H.R. 1748, "The Netizens Protection Act of 1997".  Make those SPAM-roaches run!             http://www.cauce.org          TAKE BACK THE INTERNET!

Re: Standadised OO Language

[Brian Rogoff]

On 12 Feb 1998, David  Weller wrote:
> In article <6bur94$k8n$1@news3.alpha.net>,
> Kenneth W. Sodemann <stufflehead@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >Matthew Daniel wrote in message <34E2D3D9.B2F1F398@adelaide.on.net>...
> >>After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
> >>Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
> >>said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
> >>an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.
> >>
> >You are wrong, and so is your friend.  C++ does have an ANSI standard,
> >however it was only ratified within the last couple of months (the first
> >announcement I saw of it was in last months "C/C++ Users Journal").
> >
> >I would also be surprised if some other OO language (like Smalltalk) were
> >not standardized, but I cannot speak to that, as the two main languages I
> >work with are Ada and C++.
> >
> 
> Get ready to be surprised.  :-)

As should you. Common Lisp is an ANSI standard, and that includes CLOS, 
arguably the most "powerful" object system out there in a standard
language. If it didn't beat Ada to the "standard OO language" finish
line, it was close. 

You're right about C++ though, the Draft ISO standard was only very
recently ratified. 

> I remember laughing when C++ people were saying it'd be standardized
> by 1994.  :-)

Do I detect a little schadenfreude there David? :-)

-- Brian

Re: Standadised OO Language

[Robert Dewar]

Brian said

<<As should you. Common Lisp is an ANSI standard, and that includes CLOS,
arguably the most "powerful" object system out there in a standard
language. If it didn't beat Ada to the "standard OO language" finish
line, it was close.
>>

Normally what we have said is that Ada 95 is the only internationally
standardized object oriented language (what ever that means :-)

That has been true for a while, with no close competitors.

When the ISO C++ standard is finally approved (as noted previously, this
has not happened yet), then we will change our tune to "Ada was the
first internationally standardized OO language."

However, I fear me all these facts won't do the original poster much
good, people who hate languages without knowing much about them (the
most typical case) are unlikely to be swayed by something so prosaic
as mere facts!

Re: Standardized OO Language

[Markus Kuhn]

Matthew Daniel wrote:
> After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
> Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
> said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
> an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.
> 
> I was just wondering if I was correct or totally wrong.

You were correct. Today, there exists neither an ISO nor an ANSI
standard for C++. Ada95 has been standardized as ISO/IEC 8652:1995
for many years now.

Check the ISO database on <http://www.iso.ch/cate/cat.html> and the
ANSI database on <http://www.ansi.org/catalog/search.html> yourself!

All there exists is some advanced draft of a C++ standard.

Anyway, C++ has pointer arithmetic, therefore no object protections,
and therefore I think it is not unfair to classify C++ more as
a luxurious OO-Assembler than as a high-level programming language.
If you look for a practical high-level OO programming language,
check out either Ada95 or Java. Both are pretty decent state-of-the
art Algol successors.

Markus

-- 
Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK
email: mkuhn at acm.org,  home page: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>

Re: Standardized OO Language

[Stephen Leake]

Markus Kuhn wrote:
> 
> Check the ISO database on <http://www.iso.ch/cate/cat.html> and the
> ANSI database on <http://www.ansi.org/catalog/search.html> yourself!
> 

Thank you for posting an authoritative source, rather than simply
passing on rumors! These sites will definitly go on my bookmark list.

-- 
- Stephe

Re: Standardized OO Language

[Jon S Anthony]

Markus Kuhn <Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:

> ANSI database on <http://www.ansi.org/catalog/search.html> yourself!

From the database:

 ANSI X3.226-1994 : Information Technology - Programming Language - Common Lisp
                ^
Note------------+

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Synquiry Technologies, Ltd., Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: Standardized OO Language

[Terry Devine]

Markus Kuhn wrote:
> 
> Matthew Daniel wrote:
> > After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
> > Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
> > said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
> > an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.
> >
> > I was just wondering if I was correct or totally wrong.
> 
> You were correct. Today, there exists neither an ISO nor an ANSI
> standard for C++. Ada95 has been standardized as ISO/IEC 8652:1995
> for many years now.
> 
> Check the ISO database on <http://www.iso.ch/cate/cat.html> and the
> ANSI database on <http://www.ansi.org/catalog/search.html> yourself!
> 
> All there exists is some advanced draft of a C++ standard.
> 
> Anyway, C++ has pointer arithmetic, therefore no object protections,
> and therefore I think it is not unfair to classify C++ more as
> a luxurious OO-Assembler than as a high-level programming language.
> If you look for a practical high-level OO programming language,
> check out either Ada95 or Java. Both are pretty decent state-of-the
> art Algol successors.
> 
> Markus
> 
> --
> Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK
> email: mkuhn at acm.org,  home page: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>

Re: Standadised OO Language

[Mark Bennison]

Matthew Daniel <matt@adelaide.on.net> thought long and hard and wrote:

>After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
>Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
>said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
>an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.

Maybe he meant a draft ANSI standard. There's been one of them around
for a while. I believe that this C++ standard has recently been
ratified, but I don't have too many details. I'm sure some other kind
soul can enlighten you further.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Bennison MBCS,      +-----------------------------------+
Technical Consultant,    | All opinions expressed are my own |
EASAMS Software Systems. +-----------------------------------+
"Death is a fickle hen, and random are her eggs" - Armando Iannucci

Re: Standadised OO Language

[Dennis Reimer]

Matthew Daniel wrote:
> 
> After Having a "discussion" with one of the engineers at work,  he is an
> Ada "hater" and I am the Ada "lover", about standadised OO languages, I
> said Ada95 was the only one, well at least 6 months ago, he said C++ has
> an ANSI standard and has for a couple of years.
> 
> I was just wondering if I was correct or totally wrong.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Matt


ANSI C has been around for a while but I believe ANSI C++ was ratified
only recently (about 3 months ago.)

Re: Standadised OO Language

[Marc Wachowitz]

"Howard W. LUDWIG" <howard.w.ludwig@lmco.com> wrote:
> [Thus, Lisp has the dubious distinction of being one of the few
> languages for which both an ANSI standard and an ISO standard exist
> but they never have matched
> nor does there seem to be any attempt to harmonize them.]

Actually "Lisp" is a family of languages, with considerable differences;
except for the similarity of names, the above is like wondering why there
are so many differences between e.g. Oberon-2, Modula-3 and Ada, since
after all they do have many similarities (sometimes called "Pascal-like").
If one looks closer, one sees that this is intentionally so, since their
design principles/purposes differ.

There's an ANSI standard for "Common Lisp", an ISO standard for "ISLisp",
and an IEEE standard for Scheme (another dialect, not "object-oriented",
though some will argue that objects are poor man's replacement for first-
class function closures and flexibility ;-) and there are quite a few
non-standardized Lisp dialects (for details, see comp.lang.lisp and/or
comp.lang.scheme).

-- Marc Wachowitz <mw@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de>