Where's Ada95 when OO languages are discussed?

Where's Ada95 when OO languages are discussed?

[Mike Silva]

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?

BTW, Ada did come up in a Java newsgroup in a discussion of financial
computing, fixed point, etc.  Its ability to interface with COBOL and its
built-in fixed-point capability were mentioned, and it was even pronounced
the best general-purpose language to date by one fellow (a very dangerous
thing to do in the Java world!).
Mike

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

[fred]

In article <7d8ik6$s6d$1@its.hooked.net>, "Mike says...
>
>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?

I think this is becuase :

1. Ada, in general, is not as well known as C++ and Java.
2. Ada OO model is different from the common one used by almost every other
   OO language out there, where the 'class' construct is used. This makes 
   the Ada OO model harder for most other programmers to understand and use.

Fred.
 

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

[Gautier]

>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?

Maybe it's because Ada has OO but also other structures like packages
and genericity that are more idea-oriented, so usage of OO can be
avoided when it's inappropriate.

>BTW, Ada did come up in a Java newsgroup in a discussion of financial
>computing, fixed point, etc.  Its ability to interface with COBOL and its
>built-in fixed-point capability were mentioned, and it was even pronounced
>the best general-purpose language to date by one fellow (a very dangerous
>thing to do in the Java world!).

Oh! That guy will be lapidated with coffee beans, at least!

-- 
Gautier

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

[David Starner]

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

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

[David Starner]

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

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

[David Starner]

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

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

[Kevin]

In article <36F861A0.62887698@aasaa.ofe.org>, David says...
>
 
>
>> 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
>

Java is more OO than C++ or Ada, yes. but some argue that a pure OO
language should have everything in it as an object. In Java, you still
have non objects in the language, which are the primitive data types
(int, short, long etc..), although there are object wrappers to these in Java.
 
I must admit that I find a more pure OO language easier to work with nowadays
than a procedural one mixed with OO constructs language.

As an example, in Java, a task (thread) is an object that I can send messages
to. I find this conceptually nicer than working with Ada tasks when I put
my OO hat on. But when I have my procedural hat on, I find Ada easier to work
with than Java.

Kevin
  

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

[Chris Morgan]

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? Ada's installed base is much larger than Eiffel and Ada
certainly has history too (hint, C++ was designed with some nods
towards Ada83). Finally, neither version was designed by committee.

Chris
-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com                http://mihalis.net
     "I don't have time to read a 1200 page book. 
      I am afraid to even let one in my house." 
                                     - Philip Greenspun 

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

[Chris Morgan]

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.

> 
> > 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.

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"). 

> 
> > 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. 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.


> 
> > 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. This is a common misconception amongst people
who have no idea how Ada95 came to be, true, but then so is the idea
that Microsoft invented GUIs and the Internet amongst AOL newbies. Do
you really want to say that posting "common knowledge" helps anyone?
For the record, Ada95 was designed by a small team. The requirements
gathering exercise was by committee but in the end it came down to a
chap called Tucker Taft to hold the entire design together. He did a
good job.

Common knowledge is of no interest when the facts are known, and I
like to correct such inaccuracies wherever possible.

> 
> *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.

Chris
-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com                http://mihalis.net
     "I don't have time to read a 1200 page book. 
      I am afraid to even let one in my house." 
                                     - Philip Greenspun 

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

[SpamSpamSpam]

Chris Morgan wrote:

> > However we all agree that it is better termed "urban myth", and I think
> > this is what David Starner was trying to imply.
> >
> > Please don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the
> > message.
>
> Point taken, but most serious programmers I've met don't think these
> things.

"most serious programmers I'm met" is as much hearsay as the "common
knowledge
"comment you jumped on.  The "please supply reference" argument is employed
too often
on CLA. The thread you high jacked offered reasons why Ada remains a minority
language.
The posters were quite clear to distinguish "fact" from "opinion". Usenets
for opinion, if you want
fact, or if you can't stand a differing opinion without jumping down
someone's neck, stick to
your reference books.

BTW, I've meet quite a few Ada programmers who believe the "urban myth", and
most of them
are so serious its scary.

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

[robert_dewar]

In article <dale-2403991536470001@dale.bu.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
  dale@cs.rmit.edu.au (Dale Stanbrough) wrote:

> I would agree that it is "common knowledge" that Ada was
> designed by committee in that it is a very common view
> held by a lot of people who
> consider it to be knowledge, and not just unverified
> rumour.

When Dave Parnas (who really *should* know better) claimed
that Ada was designed by a committee in an interview, I
wrote a letter to GCN setting this (and a lot of other
plain misinformation in the article) straight.

I commented that this was entirely wrong, and that Ada was
designed by a team with a team captain (and pointed out
that at least sports fans do not make the mistake of
confusing a team with a committee :-)


-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

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

[robert_dewar]

In article <873e2vpfs1.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com>,
  Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Usenet this myth does seem to be common, perhaps it's
> really true that "if it's on the Internet, it's true, if
> not it doesn't exist".

Well for sure the level of misinformation all round is
pretty staggering in usenet newsgroups. That's not
suprising, you don't know who anyone is, and you have
no way of knowing if a given post is informed or not
(many are not :-)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

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

[John McCabe]

Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> > 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.
>
>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"). 

Perhaps it's just that you hear about languages when they don't work -
everyone heard about Ariane 5, but most other Ada projects have been
successful so you don't hear about it. C++ on the other hand is used
for a hell  of a lot of Windows apps, and has anyone ever seen one of
those that really worked?


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

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

[Markus Kuhn]

"Mike Silva" <mjsilva@jps.net> writes:
|> 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?

Ada programmers have often very different personalities than Java
programmers. Ada programmers enjoy their language silently and write some
of the world's most critical code in it. They know the quality of their
programming environment and they do not need continued public reassurance
from the trade press and the news group mob about their choice of tools.
To Java programmers, it seems to be much more important to swim with
the herd, to have the latest and greatest language, the language that
every child knows thanks to the gigantic marketing departments behind it. 

Ada is a strongly typed language, Java is a strongly hyped language.

Ada programmers do not need the assistence of marketing departments
in the usability evaluation of programming environments.

I have nothing against Java itself, it is indeed one of the nicer
languages around, just like Ada95 and Eiffel. It just causes in me
a slight aversion if something becomes a bit too popular, and this
has happened with Java.

Markus

-- 
Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
Email: mkuhn at acm.org,  WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>

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

[Chris Morgan]

David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> writes:

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

No I'm responding to your posts which contained inaccuracies.

> 
> > 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.

Does software that gets you from airport to airport count as
mainstream? Are you limiting it to end-user apps? 

> > 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. 

Your sarcasm is no doubt amusing, however you started off by comparing
Smalltalk to Ada and saying "Smalltalk has history". What exactly did
you mean by this?

> 
> > 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

Yes, Java is more "pure" than Ada95, but it still has non-class
integers, floats etc so it is not as pure as Smalltalk. The reason I
used quotes is that the word "pure" is often used with the connotation
of "better" when OO advocates discuss the relative merits of different
programming languages but that's actually just a matter of opinion. In
actual fact there is still a large body of opinion that a langage that
allows OO styles and also programming "to the metal" is necessary for
many tasks.

> 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?

Yes, you're a clown. Ok, I'll stop the sarcasm unilaterally now, but
consider this, as amusing as the Jargon file is, are you stating this
is your canonical reference for knowledge on programming languages?

> 
> > 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".

There is an effort to spread news of the current, factual state of the
Ada language to the common man underway right now. I don't know how
it's succeeding, but I suppose the people concerned will really have
their work cut out if everyone is going to react like you - "Everyone
knows it's a bad language, why even the jargon file says so". However
I think your description of the common man really only applies to
you. This is just your opinion of Ada based on your own limited
knowledge with the invaluable jargon file to back you up. You do
realise it's not a serious document? I believe there is a document
atacking all progress since Fortran as irrelevant which is also
canonical as net-fluff humour goes.

> > Interesting if relevant, however it isn't.
> Relevant? It was an aside, and marked as such. If you aren't interested,
> just delete it.

It was an aside based on the premise that Ada95 was designed by
committee. Since that premise is invalid your aside is irrelevant in
any case, whether I am interested or not.

Let's move on. I don't want any kind of slanging match, and in fact I
work in C, C++ and Java for my living. In addition to the kind of FUD
you posted, another reason Ada doesn't appear in OO journals is that
OO is still quite small in the markets that Ada was designed for,
whereas it is huge in C++'s market. Dynamic dispatching is rightfully
regarded with some suspicion in a world where a lot of software still
makes do without dynamic memory allocation - it must be justified
carefully. In many ways Ada is an advanced and demanding language and
it was only recently that a variety of fast inexpensive Ada compilers
became widely available - coinciding with the rise of the killer
micros (PCs). In the same space of time it's become clear that Eiffel
has some deep flaws (what is the numerical model of an Eiffel
program?) and that Java will remain uncompetitive with compiled code
speedwise, basically, forever. I probably don't need to mention the
mess C++ is in, so I see the future of Ada as still bright.

Chris
-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com                http://mihalis.net
     "I don't have time to read a 1200 page book. 
      I am afraid to even let one in my house." 
                                     - Philip Greenspun 

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

[Chris Morgan]

dale@cs.rmit.edu.au (Dale Stanbrough) writes:

> I would agree that it is "common knowledge" that Ada was designed by
> committee in that it is a very common view held by a lot of people who
> consider it to be knowledge, and not just unverified rumour.
> 
> However we all agree that it is better termed "urban myth", and I think
> this is what David Starner was trying to imply.
> 
> Please don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the 
> message.

Point taken, but most serious programmers I've met don't think these
things. Often they used to be a bit curious about Ada but never quite
connected with it, and now is the perfect time since many people have
connected with Java, C++ etc and found out the truth of the matter. Or
perhaps they did try it but it was on a VAX 10 years ago and they have
no idea of the progress since.

On Usenet this myth does seem to be common, perhaps it's really true
that "if it's on the Internet, it's true, if not it doesn't exist".

Chris
-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com                http://mihalis.net
     "I don't have time to read a 1200 page book. 
      I am afraid to even let one in my house." 
                                     - Philip Greenspun 

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

[Dale Stanbrough]

Chris Morgan wrote:

"Do you really want to say that posting "common knowledge" helps anyone?"


I would agree that it is "common knowledge" that Ada was designed by
committee in that it is a very common view held by a lot of people who
consider it to be knowledge, and not just unverified rumour.

However we all agree that it is better termed "urban myth", and I think
this is what David Starner was trying to imply.

Please don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the 
message.

Dale

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

[SpamSpamSpam]

Markus Kuhn wrote:

> Ada programmers have often very different personalities than Java
> programmers.

> I have nothing against Java itself, it is indeed one of the nicer
> languages around, just like Ada95 and Eiffel. It just causes in me
> a slight aversion if something becomes a bit too popular, and this
> has happened with Java.

There is a subculture that does not like to run with the herd, that wantto operate
within a minority precisely because its a minority - that popularity
is somehow a negative quality.  Is this is alive and well within the Ada world?

I'd rather Ada was mainstream, but I cannot see that happening
without the JAVA type marketing so berated here, I wishfully want
to believe that rumour/myth that M$ is about to jump onboard. The best
advert I can think of for Ada is any open source C code sample, but it does
not seem to stop an army of  'C' language graduates appearing each year.

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

[Chris Morgan]

munck@Mill-Creek-Systems.com (Bob Munck) writes:

> I think that we all should thank Chris Morgan for showing us
> at length and in gory detail how NOT to respond to the
> expression of opinions about Ada and its relationship
> to other languages.  It was excruciatingly embarrassing.

Very sorry about that. Go ahead and show us all how it should be done.

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

[Bob Munck]

I think that we all should thank Chris Morgan for showing us
at length and in gory detail how NOT to respond to the
expression of opinions about Ada and its relationship
to other languages.  It was excruciatingly embarrassing.

Bob Munck
Mill Creek Systems LC

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

[Matthew Heaney]

Kevin@nospam writes:

> Java is more OO than C++ or Ada, yes. 

I don't understand what you mean by "more OO."  Ada95 and C++ both
support user-defined, extensible, polymorphic types that hide their
representation.

What "more" to OO is there?

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

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> writes:
[...]
>               In the same space of time it's become clear that Eiffel
> has some deep flaws (what is the numerical model of an Eiffel
> program?) and that Java will remain uncompetitive with compiled code
> speedwise, basically, forever.

Oh?  Is there something about Java that prevents compiling it to
machine code?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <*>
San Diego, California, USA <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.

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

[Chris Morgan]

Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> writes:

> 
> Oh?  Is there something about Java that prevents compiling it to
> machine code?

Firstly it supports dynamic class loading and requires run-time
verification. Secondly every function call is virtual. The latter is a
cheap shot, true, but since my posts are "excruciatingly embarrassing"
what's the difference.

-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com                http://mihalis.net
     "Faced with the prospect of re-reading this book, I would rather
      have my brains ripped out by a plastic fork"
              - ZDNet author Charles Cooper on Bill Gates new book

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

[Mike Harrison]

In article <7dr1if$qj3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robert_dewar@my-
dejanews.com writes
>In article <7dq5b9$sgk$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>,
>  Peter Hermann <ica2ph@alpha1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
>wrote:
>
>> Stop intriguing:
>
>Interesting verb, I can't even guess what was intended :-)
>guessing?
>imagining?
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

- v.i. to engage in intrigue [Chambers Concise 20th Century Dictionary].

 read the 'secret documentation' ;->

 b.t.w. though I don't know WHO 'spamwithchips...' is, I think I know
where he works.

------------------------------------------------------------------
  (mapcar 'standard_disclaimers (my_opinions))

  Change 'devil' to 'demon' for my real email address.

    Mike H.

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

[Peter Hermann]

John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam> wrote:
> Perhaps it's just that you hear about languages when they don't work -
> everyone heard about Ariane 5,

Stop intriguing:
You should inform yourself about the reasons of Ariane 5 failure.
See
http://www.esrin.esa.it/htdocs/tidc/Press/Press96/ariane5rep.html

-- 
Peter Hermann Tel+49-711-685-3611 Fax3758 ica2ph@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de
Pfaffenwaldring 27 Raum 114, D-70569 Stuttgart Uni Computeranwendungen
http://www.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de/homes/ph/
Team Ada: "C'mon people let the world begin" (Paul McCartney)

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

[robert_dewar]

In article <7dq5b9$sgk$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>,
  Peter Hermann <ica2ph@alpha1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
wrote:

> Stop intriguing:

Interesting verb, I can't even guess what was intended :-)
guessing?
imagining?

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

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

[dennison]

In article <7dr1if$qj3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7dq5b9$sgk$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>,
>   Peter Hermann <ica2ph@alpha1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Stop intriguing:
>
> Interesting verb, I can't even guess what was intended :-)
> guessing?
> imagining?

I don't think I've ever seen it used before, but "intrigue" is a valid verb
which I have seen used on occasion. Thus I think "working an intrigue" was
what Peter was getting at. However, I suspect he completely misunderstood
what John was trying to say, and thus ended up inadvertantly agreeing with
him.

Its amusing how many posts here essentially boil down to "You are wrong. Now
I'll describe in detail how I agree completely with you."

T.E.D.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

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

[dennison]

In article <7dr1if$qj3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7dq5b9$sgk$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>,
>   Peter Hermann <ica2ph@alpha1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Stop intriguing:
>
> Interesting verb, I can't even guess what was intended :-)
> guessing?
> imagining?

I don't think I've ever seen it used before, but "intrigue" is a valid verb
which I have seen used on occasion. Thus I think "working an intrigue" was
what Peter was getting at. However, I suspect he completely misunderstood
what John was trying to say, and thus ended up inadvertantly agreeing with
him.

Its amusing how many posts here essentially boil down to "You are wrong. Now
I'll describe in detail how I agree completely with you..."

T.E.D.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

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

[bglbv]

robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com writes:

> In article <7dq5b9$sgk$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>,
>   Peter Hermann <ica2ph@alpha1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>
> wrote:
> 
> > Stop intriguing:

> Interesting verb, I can't even guess what was intended :-)
> guessing?
> imagining?

The Concise Oxford Dictionary has inter alia:
	intrigue (v.) 1. (v.i.) carry on underhand plot;
		employ secret influence (with).

"Vous avez dit bizarre?" ;-)

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

[robert_dewar]

In article <7dr8s1$1f3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> I don't think I've ever seen it used before, but
"intrigue" is a valid verb

It is a *transitive* verb, and is of course quite familiar
in this context (it is OED II definition 5b, and has
nothing at all to do with intrigue as in plotting or
an illicit sexual intimacy, it means exciting curiosity
in)

The intransitive verb (OED II definition 4a) relates to
the noun intrigue. But both uses are pretty much obsolete.
The only 20th century citations in the OED are for 5b
transitive defintion.

Now sometimes American usage is behind English usage, but
the OED in this case picks up American quotes and there
are none here.

So the phrase "stop intriguing", though it might have been
clear to Samuel Johnson, is hardly enlightening in the last
year of the millenium :-)

But it is entirely possible that he meant
stop "underhanded plotting" [to quote definition 4a :-)]


> which I have seen used on occasion. Thus I think "working
an intrigue" was
> what Peter was getting at. However, I suspect he
completely misunderstood
> what John was trying to say, and thus ended up
inadvertantly agreeing with
> him.
>
> Its amusing how many posts here essentially boil down to
"You are wrong. Now
> I'll describe in detail how I agree completely with you."
>
> T.E.D.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion
Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or
Start Your Own
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

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

[John McCabe]

Peter Hermann <ica2ph@alpha1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:

>John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam> wrote:
>> Perhaps it's just that you hear about languages when they don't work -
>> everyone heard about Ariane 5,
>
>Stop intriguing:

As everyone else has said --- eh?

>You should inform yourself about the reasons of Ariane 5 failure.
>See
>http://www.esrin.esa.it/htdocs/tidc/Press/Press96/ariane5rep.html

I am perfectly aware of the reasons for the Ariane 5 failure, you
appear to have missed my point in that many people who are *not* so
aware believed the failure was due to the use of Ada in Ariane 5.

Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

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

[John McCabe]

robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <7dr8s1$1f3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
>> I don't think I've ever seen it used before, but
>"intrigue" is a valid verb
>
>It is a *transitive* verb, and is of course quite familiar
>in this context (it is OED II definition 5b, and has
>nothing at all to do with intrigue as in plotting or
>an illicit sexual intimacy, it means exciting curiosity
>in)

Fascinating!


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>