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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Nasser Subject: Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C? (WAS: Re: Avoiding the second historic mistake) Date: 1997/07/19 Message-ID: <5qs47k$duf@drn.zippo.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257805859 References: Organization: None Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , mheaney@ni.net says... > >Spoken like a true afficionado of inheritence! Well, I have some more news >for you, Don. Nature (interpret that to mean God, if that suits you) has >chosen aggregation as the essential means of systems construction. So, how does one explain what genetics tells us about DNA duplication ftom parents to their children? How do you explain that green skinned people produce green skinned people? and taller people most will produce taller people? this is all nature at work, and each new creation of nature has inherited propertites of eariler generations. offcourse, the human body is build by aggregation (eyes, ears, legs, arms, etc.), but the poperty that those pieces have are mostly inherited. As for aggreation vs. inheritence, for me, the most important thing is to be to do software reuse as easily as possible, which methodology one chooses to drive towardes this, is just detailes. I think Ada is the best language I have programmed with to enable code resuse. I happend to think aggregation seems 'easier' to work with, but may be that becuase I have not done allot of inheritence. Also inheritence, by its nature, implies code coupling between the base and the children. If one chances the base, then ALL of its children behaviours will change, while in aggregation, one "client" can choose not to use the new changed/modified aggregate component, while the rest of the clients who used the common component can 'upgrade' to the new one. Nasser