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: 103376,a86f1b04a0a258b4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,a86f1b04a0a258b4
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: Dennis Miller <Dennis_Miller-P28917@email.mot.com>
Subject: Re: UML & Ada
Date: 1998/06/17
Message-ID: <35884CE5.45B017F3@email.mot.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 363683358
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <35868F4A.FC463980@email.mot.com> <ubtrrzylj.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Motorola SSTG
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Date: 1998-06-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>




Stephen Leake wrote:

> Dennis Miller <Dennis_Miller-P28917@email.mot.com> writes:
>
> > Although Ada is considered an object-based language (not including Ada
> > 95) as opposed to a OO language, is it possible to construct code in Ada
> > from UML notation and vice versa?  Better yet, is it possible to get a
> > high level of functionality from an OO notation system and implementing
> > it with a object-based language?
>
> Yes; Ada 83 is equivalent to a Turing machine, so it can be done. But
> I suspect this may not be what you meant by "functionality".
>
> On a more practical note, why are you excluding Ada 95? It is
> certainly easier to get an Ada 95 compiler than an Ada 83 compiler for
> most machines! (see http://www.gnat.com/ and http://www.aonix.com/).
>
> >
> > Dennis Miller
>
> -- Stephe

I excluded Ada 95 on the principle that it is more OO than its predecessor
(Ada 83).

Dennis