Re: Where's Ada95 when OO languages are discussed?

[David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org>]

Chris Morgan wrote:
> 
> David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> When you talk abot history and showoffs, do you ever check your facts
> first?
Yes. Everything said is true. You inferred things that weren't meant to
be implied.

> Ada's installed base is much larger than Eiffel 
I wasn't trying to compare Ada and Eiffel. I was merely saying that one
reason people aren't familiar with Ada is because it's not as commonly
used as C++ or Java.

> and Ada certainly has history too (hint, C++ was designed with some nods
> towards Ada83). 
Okay, but Smalltalk is considered one of the first two OO languages,
with Simula. Smalltalk predates Ada, IIRC, and certainly predates Ada as
a fully OO language.

> Finally, neither version was designed by committee.
"By many people, it's considered". I've read all over the net that Ada
is what you get when you have a language designed by committe*, and the
first thing friends say when I mention Ada is "I guess it's all right,
if you like a language designed by committe." I knew that Ada83 wasn't
designed by commitee, and I'll take your word on Ada95. It's just that
"common knowledge" opposes you.

*It really shouldn't be as big a slam as it is. Algol 60 was designed by
a commitee, and it's one of the more important computer languages ever.
Of course, OTOH, you have Algol 68, C++ and probably PL/1. Considering
that the vast vast majority of languages written by one person stink,
that's not that bad a track record.

-- 
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