Re: Fun with History: ³Why wasn't Ada83 object oriented?²

[Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 17/02/2012 17:22, in article op.v9t2jgpmule2fv@douda-yannick, "Yannick
Duch�ne   (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Funny paper I�ve never read before. In the middle of the page (the link
> follows) you read:
> 
>> Why wasn't Ada83 object oriented?  It depends on who you ask.
>> According to Bertrand Meyer (peut-etre il a parle a Jean?), Jean
>> �who had been writing Simula compilers, and was thus familiar with
>> the paradigm� thought that dynamic binding would have been too
>> radical for the conservative DoD, who after all were the ones
>> commissioning the language, and so he figured they wouldn't go for
>> it.  According to others, Jean in fact didn't want type extension and
>> dynamic binding, because he didn't think it was necessary.
> 
> Quoted from:  
> http://www.adapower.com/index.php?Command=Class&ClassID=Advocacy&CID=39

What an excellent discussion that is.
I'd add a further reason for Ada's unpopularity: the mere fact that it was
sponsored by the DoD was enough to turn the infantile left of academe
against it, so it was not taught. I know this from personal experience.

-- 
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use  surname & forename;