Re: Ada OO Mechanism

["Shawn M. Root" <smroot@orbitworld.net>]

Richard D Riehle wrote in message
<7i4brh$hi2@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
:In article <7i2pqn$qak$1@news.orbitworld.net>,
: "Shawn M. Root" <smroot@orbitworld.net> wrote:
:
:>:So when I hear someone say that Ada is
:>:counterintuitive or C++ is counterintuitive or Object COBOL is
:>:counterintuitive, I understand that they mean, "This is not the way
:>:I am used to thinking about things."   That does not mean it is
:>:counterintuitive.  It simply means they have had difficulty learning
:>:a new programming language just as they might have trouble learning
a
:>:new spoken language.  When I hear someone speak of "natural"
language,
:>:I have to wonder what they are talking about.
:>:
:>Actually it does mean that it is counterintuitive.  Counterintuitive
:>means that what you found is not what you expected to find.  This is
a
:>relative term, not an absolute.  What is counterintuitive for me, may
:>be readily obvious to you.  Intuition has nothing to do with
"thinking
:>about things".
:
: I wonder if I want someone writing software for a pacemaker who is
: not "thinking about things."


Of course you don't.  Neither do I.

:  Intuition strikes me as a psychological
: concept that implies that one is "thinking about things" differently
: than through the use of more ordinary reasoning.

Perhaps this will help.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm

: I am willing to
: accept the notion of intuition as an important element of problem
: solving.

Exactly right.  It is _only_ an element in problem solving; not the
means to a complete solution.

<snip>

:
:>It has to do with the understanding or knowing of
:>something _without_ overt reasoning.  Furthermore, it does not mean
:>that someone had difficulty learning a new programming language.  It
:>simply means that, in my particular case, the Ada OO mechanisms seem
:>less obvious than the C++ mechanisms.
:
: The fact that some idea is not obvious makes it counterintuitive?
That
: notion, in itself, should make one suspicious of any effort to reach
: a conclusion by declaring that this or that is counterintuitive.

Again, I have to agree with you.  Noting that something is
counterintuitive may raise a question, but should not provide a
conclusion.

<snip>
:
: I do not believe one should become too comfortable with the notion of
: counterintuitive as an excuse for failure to learn some new idea.  In
: such cases, the failure may be that of the learner, not of the idea.

True.  In fact, questioning _why_ the idea is counterintuitive may
bring about a deeper understanding of both the new and older, related
ideas.  This was the intent of my original post.  I just want to
understand why tagged types were used instead of the seemingly more
popular class structure.


:>
:>Yes, but after calculus was invented, and the concept of the limit
was
:>understood, would you invent a new way to do limits if the new way
:>offered no significant advantages over the old way?
:
: The notion of limit did occur to earlier mathematics. It was simply
: not adopted, perhaps because it was counterintuitive.  If you have
: watched young freshman struggle with calculus, even today, the idea
: of limit still remains counterintuitive for many of them.
:

Perhaps I should have said "adopted" then, instead of "understood." The
question remains.


:>
:>Again, I don't know where you got this impression.  Perhaps others
:>you've spoken to have used the "counterintuitive excuse" to cover
:>difficulties in learning.  However, that is not the case here.  I was
:>introduced to Ada before C++ so, if anything, I had more trouble
:>learning the C++ way of doing things.  My comments have nothing to do
:>with not working hard enough to understand certain ideas.  I
understand
:>the ideas and concepts involved.  I understand the other side's
:>arguments.  So far, however, I don't agree with them.
:
: Perhaps it depends on where one stands to examine the issues.
Certainly,
: it is depends on what _arbitrary_ foundations one selects to support
: the argument.  When I look at a pencil immersed in water, it is clear
: to me that the pencil becomes bent.  Unless I understand some
additional
: physics, I will not realize that the pencil is not actually bent,
: even though it seems so obvious from my simple viewpoint that it is.
:

True, but how often do you need to know the physics?  If I'm building a
house, I don't need to know that a boards solidity is a result of an
interplay of forces between widely spaced atoms.  I just need to know
that if I nail it to this other board, it will stay there.

: It seems to me that, when evaluating software tools and languages, we
: need a more comprehensive view of the problem, one that does not
reject
: some perfectly good approach by suggesting that some starting point
for
: a solution seems counterintuitive.

Fine.  Then the comprehensive solution should not dismiss out of hand
the fact that an approach seems counterintuitive.  Most definitely not
in a language which has as one of it's goals, readability.

: It is often the intuition on which
: the counterintuitive conclusion is based that makes the
counterintuitive
: viewpoint the best place to begin looking for a solution.
: If Ada is
: counterintuitive, perhaps that is a good thing, especially when
seeking
: solutions to problems of designing large-scale, safety-critical
software.
:

I'm not sure how a counterintuitive language is supposed to promote
better design.  That said, I really don't think that Ada is
counterintuitive.  It is a very natural feeling language.  I just have
issues with why the tagged type was used instead of a class construct.
Since my original post, I have had conversations (sometimes loud) with
one of our local Ada experts.  He has given me many reasons why tagged
types were used instead of a class.  Samuel Mize's post was also very
illuminating.  They have at least left me reassured that the choice
wasn't entirely arbitrary.  It is disheartening, however, since I
believe that this could hurt Ada's chances for increased popularity.
It would be nice to see more and varied use of Ada.  The response I
received to my question was also a bit disheartening.  With the
exception of Mr. Mize, whose response was very helpful, I received no
other answers to my questions. Perhaps I would've gotten better results
with a "How do I send text to the screen?" question.

--
Shawn M. Root