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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 108717,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid108717,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b19fa62fdce575f9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,ef0074ec236ba6e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-26 02:16:25 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.programming,comp.lang.c++,comp.object Subject: Re: What is OO (Was Enough crap about Ada already!) Followup-To: comp.object Date: 26 Nov 1994 04:10:00 -0600 Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969 Message-ID: <3b71ho$bjb@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> References: <785104767snz@rippleco.demon.co.uk> <5918@gec-mrc.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.lang.ada:16978 comp.lang.c:69827 comp.programming:13094 comp.lang.c++:80427 comp.object:17784 Date: 1994-11-26T04:10:00-06:00 List-Id: In article <5918@gec-mrc.co.uk>, Paul Johnson wrote: >Don Vick (dvick@lanier.com) wrote: >> [...] > >> Others (I've forgotten who said what) looked at data flow or process >> structure in different ways to get clues on decomposition criteria. >> And someone said, "Think of the objects that the application models; >> identify the data (what we know about the objects) and the operations >> (what we do to the objects), and make *that* your program structure. > >> This turned out to be a pretty good way to do things [...] > >> Now this object oriented decomposition could be done in any language. >> [...] > >Yes, but you missed out inheritance. What you have described is the >object *based* techniques. Object *oriented* techniques allow the >programmer to describe new classes of objects in terms of their >similarity to existing classes. This is impossible in some >traditional languages (e.g Ada) and very difficult in others (e.g C). >That was the main push behind the development of OO languages. > Careful, Paul. Ada is OO now with Inheritance, Run-time dispatching, and lightweight threads. It ain't a "traditional" language any more. In fact, it's now the first ISO standardized OO language. finger my account for more details. Having said all that, you're correct that it is possible to implement OOA/D with a "non-OO" language. Many, many Ada projects since 1983 have been doing that. Of course, Ada was already pretty close to OO with abstraction and genericity features. Trying it with something like C is a little harder (been there, done that). Trying it with assembler or COBOL is just plain nuts (but it has been done!). Oh, I've modified the Followup-To over to comp.object, where this discussion is more appropriate. I hope others will do the same. -- Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2) ||This is not your Ada -- Very Cool. Doesn't Suck. || father's Ada For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command: ||________________ "finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.) |"Quitting C++ isn't so difficult, provided you show as much | | persistence stopping as you did starting." dweller |