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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,15aa2a43fe2cde80,start
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,15aa2a43fe2cde80,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,15aa2a43fe2cde80,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,15aa2a43fe2cde80,start
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 10a640,15aa2a43fe2cde80,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a640,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,15aa2a43fe2cde80,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: f79bb,15aa2a43fe2cde80,start
X-Google-Attributes: gidf79bb,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,15aa2a43fe2cde80,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: ell@access4.digex.net (Ell)
Subject: Re: Eiffel and Java
Date: 1996/11/02
Message-ID: <55e611$abq@news3.digex.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 193848331
organization: The Universe
followup-to: 
 comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.sather,comp.object,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.clos,fr.comp.objet
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.sather,comp.object,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.clos,fr.comp.objet
Date: 1996-11-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Ranjan Bagchi (ranjan.bagchi@pobox.com) wrote:
: Chris wrote:
: > 
: > The point with Java is that it's nearly C++.
: > 
: > So, even if it's not the best language, the C++ community would choose it
: > 
: > That's enough to make it a standard !
: > 
: > Chris
 
: Note:  Smalltalk bias.
: 
: I'd think that this kind standard would tend to produce a lot of Java 
: code which is just "C++ written in Java".  That is C++ code with 
: whatever syntactic tweaking is needed to get it pass the compiler.  

And there are large amounts of fully object-oriented C++, just as there
are other forms of C++ code.  I.e. there is much C++ code which models in
an OO way, and which uses OO design techniques to reduce dependencies.
 
: This is similar to what has happened in the C++ community where the joke 
: was that there were only 5 real C++ programmers and everyone else was 
: just coding C.  There wasn't enough incentive to use the kind of C++ 
: idioms that Coplien and Myers write about in their books.
: 
: That's what's really neat about languages like Smalltalk where
: the language forces programmers to start thinking in Smalltalk's object 
: model and produce Smalltalk written in Smalltalk.

Isn't it possible for someone to write a Smalltalk program with bad design
decompostion from an OO perspective? 

Elliott