Re: Current state of the language

[mbk@jt3ws1.seas.ucla.edu (Kennel)]

Robb Nebbe (nebbe@lglsun.epfl.ch) wrote:
> As a side note that isn't particularly pertinent - just informative:

> 	Ada 95 generalizes this concept of class to user defined types
> 	which provides the basis for the OO rather than adding on a
> 	separate OO annex to the existing language like C++. There
> 	are actually some interesting parallels between Ada and Sather
> 	since both languages separate polymorphic views from monomorphic
> 	views of an object. In Ada these are class-wide types and
> 	specific types (or sometimes just classes and types) and in
> 	Sather they are called abstract and concrete types.

Oddly enough, the preferred terminology for Sather is now
"types" for the abstract 'things', and "classes" for the concrete 'things',
apparently exactly reveresed from Ada. :-(

{So I guess it's not my preferred terminology.  Abstract types vs. 
 concrete classes seems to be clear, however.}

> Robb Nebbe