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:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> And some things you say are still wrong.
You seem to just be arguing here.

> That's true. However Ada isn't even as visible as it might be given
> the market value of Ada projects, since a lot of them are embedded
> and/or defence projects (Boeing 777, USAF F-22, Channel Tunnel
> signals, London Jubilee line, UKRN Trident sub CCCI - notable but not
> "newsworthy").

That's sort of what I meant by mainstream*. The only major program that
might cross my desktop that's written in Ada is GNAT, to the best of my
knowledge.

* In retrospect a very poor choice of word.

> 
> >
> > > 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.
> 
> Ada is getting on for 20 years, so it has _enough_ history in my
> mind.
Interesting. Unfortunately, I don't have your mind on hand, so I
couldn't consult it. 

> True, many OO features are bolted onto the core language in
> Ada95, but other features have been there since the beginning. It's
> not "pure" whatever that means, but then neither are C++ and Java.

"Pure" in OO terms refers to whether it forces everything to be OO. Java
is generally considered a pure OO language. C++ is not

> >
> > > 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.
> 
> Please give references. 

Jargon File:
Hackers are nearly unanimous in observing that, technically, it [Ada] is
precisely what one might expect given that kind of endorsement by fiat;
designed by committee, crockish, difficult to use, and overall a
disastrous, multi-billion-dollar boondoggle ...

The canonical reference. Enough said?

> Common knowledge is of no interest when the facts are known, and I
> like to correct such inaccuracies wherever possible.
It was an explanation about why Ada wasn't considered when other OO
languages are. "Common knowledge" is very much of interest when
discussing the actions of "the common man".
> 
> >
> > *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.
> 
> Interesting if relevant, however it isn't.
Relevant? It was an aside, and marked as such. If you aren't interested,
just delete it.


-- 
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