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: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: dweller@universe.digex.net (David Weller) Subject: Re: ADA and Pascal work, C,C++, and Java are the only lheadaches you need!! Date: 1997/11/06 Message-ID: <63tuf7$sq7@universe.digex.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 287552424 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: #define TROLLBAIT(Newsgroups trimmed because I hate Pascal and Java is a fad.) In article , John Stevens wrote: >On 06 Nov 1997 20:48:26 +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote: >>>>>>> "John" == John Stevens writes: >>John> The one huge advantage C++ has over Ada, is that C++ is at least >>John> semi-object oriented. Ada isn't. >>Looks like you're unaware of the '95 revision of the Ada language... > >I've looked at the new standard. > >I do not consider Ada to be an object oriented programming language. > Uh-oh...you're not one of those "OO purists", are you? Those arguments are red herrings at best...I think your point is made more explicit in your next sentence... >Note that you write OO *programs* in almost any language. I've done >OO programs in C. But to be an OO programming language, it isn't >sufficient to hack in some neat new stuff. > Hack? Hmm...that implies a complete lack of engineering effort, or a poor "kludge" into a given language. Perhaps you can compare how Ada's OO features are a hack compared to, say, C++ templates? (Yes, it's a troll of sorts, but my point is that I don't think you don't posess enough experience in both languages to discuss the merits or detractions of both Ada's OO support or C++ template support...in which case, your original post should just be retracted and you should say, "Sorry, I was talking out of my ass...I'll be more careful next time") >I may, in fact, be impossible to create anything other than a semi-OO >language, or at best, a Hybrid OO language, with out starting from >a blank slate. A plausible argument...spoken language suffers from the same predicament, but we don't collectively speak Esperanto, Loglan, or (God be praised) Solresol. Smalltalkers are quite fond of defending their language is "pure", but "purity" is an elusive quality. Perhaps if you defined "Pure", "Hybrid", and "Hacked" categories of languages, we could begin to find a common ground for discourse (Hint: You can't do it. I'm trolling again :-) Let's just end this thread by recapping: 1) You didn't know what you were talking about in your original post. 2) You were corrected by a reader 3) You revised your comments by making vacuous statements (Defense By Hand-Waving). 4) You caught me in a peckish mood and I posted a followup instead of deleting the thread like a good Netizen. Hopefully everybody will NOT follow my example :-) Alas, most REALLY long threads are started this way...I have a feeling this will be no exception.