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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,349657f8b72f2411 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: David Starner Subject: Re: Where's Ada95 when OO languages are discussed? Date: 1999/03/23 Message-ID: <36F7F02E.BC57F7CB@aasaa.ofe.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 458153980 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <7d8ik6$s6d$1@its.hooked.net> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: SLUG Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-03-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mike Silva wrote: > > I've noticed that Ada95 is conspicuously absent when OO languages are > discussed on the net. One would get the impression that C++, Java, > Smalltalk and Eiffel are the only big players. Any thoughts as to why this > is? Two reasons: 1. Ada doesn't get much respect. By many people, it's considered a overgrown monstrosity built by commitee. I also get the impression it's not used for much mainstream stuff. Smalltalk has history, and C++, Java and Eiffel are the new showoffs. 2. Ada's OO is weird. It doesn't follow the same class structure that most of the OO world follows, and it feels like Ada95 tends towards procedural programming, with a permission to program OO. On the contray, the main reason to use C++ over C is OO, and Smalltalk, Java, and Eiffel are 'pure' OO languages. -- David Starner - OSU student - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org If you want a real optimist, look up Ray Bradbury. Guy's nuts. He actually likes people. -David Brin