Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid

Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid

[dennison]

In article <01be184b$6c7cbac0$7a36e5c0@pearl>,
  "partha sarathi panda" <ppanda@rational.com> wrote:
> can anyone convince me on why the Ada object-oriented model does even
> compare with  the tight c++ one?
>
>
Perhaps you should join the thread ""Classes" as packages in Ada", already in
progress...

--
T.E.D.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid

[Pat Rogers]

partha sarathi panda wrote in message
<01be184b$6c7cbac0$7a36e5c0@pearl>...
>can anyone convince me on why the Ada object-oriented model does
even
>compare with  the tight c++ one?


Why is a person from Rational asking this question?

Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid

[Brian Rogoff]

On 25 Nov 1998, partha sarathi panda wrote:

> can anyone convince me on why the Ada object-oriented model does even
> compare with  the tight c++ one?

"Stupid" and "tight" are vague. If you ever master English well enough to
formulate the question precisely, someone may be able to give you a real
answer. The best I can do, given the brevity of this troll, is to mention
that Ada 95 does not combine the role of package/module into that of type 
to create a "class", as does C++ (which now has namespaces; so much for
"tight"!), and does not tie the notion of OO dispatch to pointer
semantics. 

-- Brian

Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid

[Michael Stark]

partha sarathi panda wrote:
> 
> can anyone convince me on why the Ada object-oriented model does even
> compare with  the tight c++ one?

I wouldn't even try ;)

Seriously, the most important aspects of the OO model are language
independent.  As far as OOP languages go, C++ and Ada are closer to
each other than a "pure" OO language such as Smalltalk.  For example,
neither C++ nor Ada require classes to be derived from a root class 
Object, and both allow objects to be declared as variables as well as
allocated from the heap, while other OO languages require all objects
to be created dynamically. 

I am not claiming a lot of similarity between Ada & C++, just these
aspects of how classes work.  Again, the most important OO concepts
are language independent and used in requirements analysis and design.

Mike
-- 
Michael Stark
Goddard Research & Study Fellow
University of Maryland, College Park
e-mail: mstark@cs.umd.edu
phone: (301) 405-2721
"The term unprofessional is often used to characterize surprising or
threatening behavior.  Anything that upsets the weak manager is almost
by definition unprofessional"  -- Tom DeMarco, in "Peopleware"

Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid

[Richard D Riehle]

In article <01be184b$6c7cbac0$7a36e5c0@pearl>,
	"partha sarathi panda" <ppanda@rational.com> wrote:

>can anyone convince me on why the Ada object-oriented model does even
>compare with  the tight c++ one?
>

   "He convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

   "For those who believe, no proof is necessary.  For those who
    do not, no proof is acceptable."

I wish I had attributions for these quotes, but they seem to suit the
tone of the inquiry.

Richard Riehle
richard@adaworks.com
http://www.adaworks.com

Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid

[Dale Stanbrough]

partha sarathi panda wrote:

"can anyone convince me on why the Ada object-oriented model does even
 compare with  the tight c++ one?"


Could you please describe the important aspects of the C++ model in your
opinion? (although i doubt you will, so many postings of these sorts are
just "hit and run" from people who lack the intellectual integrity to 
actually seek the answers for the questions they ask).

Dale

Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <9eV62.403$Wj.3147@SnBeta>, "Pat Rogers" <progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> writes:
> partha sarathi panda wrote in message
> <01be184b$6c7cbac0$7a36e5c0@pearl>...
>>can anyone convince me on why the Ada object-oriented model does
> even
>>compare with  the tight c++ one?
> 
> 
> Why is a person from Rational asking this question?

Presumably for the same reason anyone from any company might.

Did you think Rational was composed entirely of people devoted to Ada ?
Perhaps the purpose of the post is to disabuse you of that notion :-)

Larry Kilgallen

Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid

[Jim Easterbrook]

In article <73hok7$s41@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Richard D Riehle <LaoXhai@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>   "He convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Benjamin Franklin? Dale Carnegie?

>   "For those who believe, no proof is necessary.  For those who
>    do not, no proof is acceptable."

Kenneth L. Woodward?

>I wish I had attributions for these quotes, but they seem to suit the
>tone of the inquiry.

A quich web search revealed the above authors. At least one of these
answers is incorrect.
-- 
Jim Easterbrook
BBC Research & Development                   <http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/>
***     All opinions are mine and might not be shared by the BBC    ***

Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid

[Dr Amirez]

In article <1998Nov27.163354.1@eisner> Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam writes:
>In article <9eV62.403$Wj.3147@SnBeta>, "Pat Rogers" <progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> writes:
>> partha sarathi panda wrote in message
>> <01be184b$6c7cbac0$7a36e5c0@pearl>...
>>>can anyone convince me on why the Ada object-oriented model does
>> even
>>>compare with  the tight c++ one?
>> 
>> 
>> Why is a person from Rational asking this question?
>
>Presumably for the same reason anyone from any company might.
>
>Did you think Rational was composed entirely of people devoted to Ada ?
>Perhaps the purpose of the post is to disabuse you of that notion :-)
>
>Larry Kilgallen

Grady Booch himself authored some C++ book, didn't he? :)
Dr Amirez