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: 103376,349657f8b72f2411
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Kevin@nospam
Subject: Re: Where's Ada95 when OO languages are discussed?
Date: 1999/03/23
Message-ID: <7d9rc0$ma6@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 458270618
References: <7d8ik6$s6d$1@its.hooked.net> <36F7F02E.BC57F7CB@aasaa.ofe.org>
 <87emmfpw3t.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com> <36F837D3.3F7227FA@aasaa.ofe.org>
 <877ls7porm.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com> <36F861A0.62887698@aasaa.ofe.org>
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://www.newsguy.com]
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-03-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <36F861A0.62887698@aasaa.ofe.org>, David says...
>
 
>
>> True, many OO features are bolted onto the core language in
>> Ada95, but other features have been there since the beginning. It's
>> not "pure" whatever that means, but then neither are C++ and Java.
>

>"Pure" in OO terms refers to whether it forces everything to be OO. Java
>is generally considered a pure OO language. C++ is not
>

Java is more OO than C++ or Ada, yes. but some argue that a pure OO
language should have everything in it as an object. In Java, you still
have non objects in the language, which are the primitive data types
(int, short, long etc..), although there are object wrappers to these in Java.
 
I must admit that I find a more pure OO language easier to work with nowadays
than a procedural one mixed with OO constructs language.

As an example, in Java, a task (thread) is an object that I can send messages
to. I find this conceptually nicer than working with Ada tasks when I put
my OO hat on. But when I have my procedural hat on, I find Ada easier to work
with than Java.

Kevin