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: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: jerry@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl (Jerry van Dijk) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 213106529 references: <32EB753C.678B@jmpstart.com> organization: * JerryWare HQ *, Holland followup-to: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff (bobduff@world.std.com) wrote: : >Isn't this whole discussion futile since programming languages are just : >tools, and not every problem looks like a nail ? : No, no, and no! A language is not "a tool". It is a *collection* of : perhaps-related tools. Oops, did I accidentily kick a hobby horse here ? :-) If you mean that any language design reflects a choice of 'features' based on a certain model, I agree. However, from a practical point of view, only few of us are in the position to design our own languages so are forced to pick one of the toolboxes pre-filled by the shop. : To me, : that's what this debate is about. I *really* want Ada's type safety (at : compile time, in many cases) and Smalltalk's flexibility and simplicity. : I want both. Yep. Me too. And while we are at it, lets add Eiffel style pre- and post conditions too. But, to put it in a style too often seen, even here on c.l.a.: "please, tell me where to download" :-)) : Don't tell me, "If you choose the hammer, you can't have the wrenches." : I think it's technically feasible to have both. I think the idea that a : programming language is a single tool, take it or leave it, as is, is : bogus. Not bogus, just practical. : >... But I have developed a banking application in which the : >presentation- and application layers were written in Smalltalk, while : >the functional- and interface layers were written in Ada. : OK, that's an OK answer, given the current state-of-the-art, but there : are serious costs to interfacing between the two. In practice its not that bad, at least, we didn't have any real problems with it. A lot of interfacing code can be generated from specs by writing a relatively simple parser-based tool. : I claim that it's : possible to design a programming language that supports both at the same : time, without the interfacing difficulties. I admit I do not know enough of language design to argue against the possibility. But common sense than begs the question: why has such an obviously superior language not been designed already ? At least, I'm not aware of it. < now searching for my flame-proof email shield :-) > : So I don't buy the idea that you can just choose whatever language is : best for each module, and then paste them together. Because of a) the effort to add extra interfacing code and b) the performance penalty ? Added to the expectency that someday the ideal language will be born ? For that are the arguments I can distill from the above. However, from a practical point of view, there are far better arguments against such a mixed language solution: manning two or more development teams, the complexity of maintaining different but related development enviroments, extra tool costs, etc. In some situations the benifits of a mixed language solution outweight these disavantages, in other situations they don't. Jerry. -- +----------------+-------------------------------+ | Jerry van Dijk | Consultant, Ordina Finance BV | | Team Ada | Haarlem, Holland | +----------------+-------------------------------+