Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C?

[ell@access5.digex.net (Ell)]

Jon S Anthony (jsa@alexandria.organon.com) wrote:
:
: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <gwyn@ix.netcom.com> writes:
: >
: > [Don't know] wrote:
: >
: > > In spite of what you may have heard, your dishwasher, your car, your
: > > watch,
: > > and even you are constructed using aggregation.  Last time I checked,
: > > neither my computer (my little Mac, bless it), nor my stereo, nor my
: > > microwave oven were constructed using inheritence - not even (gasp!)
: > > multiple inheritence.  Say it ain't so, Joe!
 
: > That's not at all true.  In the course of engineering, there is
: > normally a vast amount of inheritance going into systems design.
: > What is inherited is often a model for the general class of the
: > particular product, and the less original the designer, the more
: > this shows.  For example, automobiles pretty much all look alike,
: > and when a new one is designed they don't really start with a
: > totally clean slate.  I doubt that assumptions such as "has 4
: > wheels" are reexamined; they are merely inherited.
 
: This is _not_ in any way shape or form anything like the sort of
: "inheritance" codified and directly expressed in typical OOPLs.  What
: you mention above is "genealogy style inheritance".  So, while there
: is definitely truth in what you say, it is irrelevant to the topic at
: hand.

I do not see how it's so different.  One class inheriting from another is
actually one generalization being inherited from another.  In biology it's
not ideas that are inherited, but genes.  The notion of passing on is
common to both forms of inheritance. 

Elliott
-- 
"The domain object model is the foundation of OOD."

"We should seek out proven optimal practices and use them."

	~~ The writer