Re: Where's Ada95 when OO languages are discussed?

[Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com>]

David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> writes:

> > When you talk abot history and showoffs, do you ever check your facts
> > first?
> Yes. Everything said is true. You inferred things that weren't meant to
> be implied.

And some things you say are still wrong.

> 
> > Ada's installed base is much larger than Eiffel 
> I wasn't trying to compare Ada and Eiffel. I was merely saying that one
> reason people aren't familiar with Ada is because it's not as commonly
> used as C++ or Java.

That's true. However Ada isn't even as visible as it might be given
the market value of Ada projects, since a lot of them are embedded
and/or defence projects (Boeing 777, USAF F-22, Channel Tunnel
signals, London Jubilee line, UKRN Trident sub CCCI - notable but not
"newsworthy"). 

> 
> > and Ada certainly has history too (hint, C++ was designed with some nods
> > towards Ada83). 
> Okay, but Smalltalk is considered one of the first two OO languages,
> with Simula. Smalltalk predates Ada, IIRC, and certainly predates Ada as
> a fully OO language.

Ada is getting on for 20 years, so it has _enough_ history in my
mind. 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.


> 
> > Finally, neither version was designed by committee.
> "By many people, it's considered". I've read all over the net that Ada
> is what you get when you have a language designed by committe*, and the
> first thing friends say when I mention Ada is "I guess it's all right,
> if you like a language designed by committe." I knew that Ada83 wasn't
> designed by commitee, and I'll take your word on Ada95. It's just that
> "common knowledge" opposes you.

Please give references. This is a common misconception amongst people
who have no idea how Ada95 came to be, true, but then so is the idea
that Microsoft invented GUIs and the Internet amongst AOL newbies. Do
you really want to say that posting "common knowledge" helps anyone?
For the record, Ada95 was designed by a small team. The requirements
gathering exercise was by committee but in the end it came down to a
chap called Tucker Taft to hold the entire design together. He did a
good job.

Common knowledge is of no interest when the facts are known, and I
like to correct such inaccuracies wherever possible.

> 
> *It really shouldn't be as big a slam as it is. Algol 60 was designed by
> a commitee, and it's one of the more important computer languages ever.
> Of course, OTOH, you have Algol 68, C++ and probably PL/1. Considering
> that the vast vast majority of languages written by one person stink,
> that's not that bad a track record.

Interesting if relevant, however it isn't.

Chris
-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com                http://mihalis.net
     "I don't have time to read a 1200 page book. 
      I am afraid to even let one in my house." 
                                     - Philip Greenspun