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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.50.66.200 with SMTP id h8mr12013753igt.1.1444047167417;
        Mon, 05 Oct 2015 05:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.112.234 with SMTP id it10mr144973obb.13.1444047167367;
 Mon, 05 Oct 2015 05:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!news.glorb.com!kq10no16946709igb.0!news-out.google.com!z4ni11845ign.0!nntp.google.com!kq10no15629580igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 05:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1510011544460.1702@Lydia.insomnia247.nl>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=185.30.133.97;
 posting-account=hya6vwoAAADTA0O27Aq3u6Su3lQKpSMz
NNTP-Posting-Host: 185.30.133.97
References: <b975bbc7-672c-4f61-958b-04c90735560a@googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1510011544460.1702@Lydia.insomnia247.nl>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <79ba2b75-a27a-4684-a48b-88fe91f86b3e@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: was Ada 83 in fact object oriented ?
From: Vincent <vincent.diemunsch@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:12:47 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:27909
Date: 2015-10-05T05:12:47-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le jeudi 1 octobre 2015 15:46:14 UTC+2, Paul Colin de Gloucester a =E9crit=
=A0:
>=20
> As mentioned by Alan Curtis Kay on
>   WWW.Purl.org/stefan_ram/pub/doc_kay_oop_en
> : "[. . .]
>=20
> OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and
> hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things. It
> can be done in Smalltalk and in LISP. There are possibly other systems
> in which this is possible, but I'm not aware of them.
>=20

So we now have three d=E9finitions of OOP :

1. Encapsulation of data and operations that manipulates that data into a
   source code module that reflects the abstractions (the concepts) of the
   problem. Ada 83 does this well.

2. Classes of types, with a common interface, each of which encapsulates an
   abstraction, to promote direct reuse of executable code (in fact the=20
   caller).  This contains the ideas of interfaces, virtual methods and so =
on.
   Ada 2005 does this, but I thing it could have been designed better, even=
 if
   Ada 2005 corrected some of the worst flaws of Ada 95.

3. Machines exchanging messages as abstract syntax trees. Only LISP, Smallt=
alk
   and Objective C do this. But I personnaly find odd the idea of Objects
   exchanging messages. If they "speak" shouldn't they be called "subjects"=
 or
   "agents" or "actors" ?

Regards,

Vincent