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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212856904 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. 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: In article bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > In article , > Jerry van Dijk wrote: > >Smalltalk would not exactly be my first choice if I had to built a large > >reliable system. Neither would Ada be my first choice for developing > >a PC GUI front-end. > > But suppose I want to build a large reliable system with a GUI front end? > > >... 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. I claim that it's > possible to design a programming language that supports both at the same > time, without the interfacing difficulties. Actually, that is more than an OK answer. It is highly unlikely that a single "theory" (pgmlan in this context) can encompass and express all possible view points on a particular subject and maintain any kind of coherency itself. I'd go further and say it is out right ludicrous to make such a claim. It has never been done - not even in things that actually _are_ sciences and engineering (forget about software and computer "science") - and there is no evidence whatsoever that it _can_ be, let alone _will_ be. The idea of "one language for all things" is every bit as silly as "_the_ theory of everything". So, it makes a lot of sense to concentrate on working out explicit well defined interface points between PL semantics where the "impedance mismatch" is controlled and "easily" managed. Of course this would require real communication and cooperation between the various camps - wow, what a novel idea... Notice that something like CORBA is not really the same thing (it functions a bit more like Ontalingua in the KE/KA field). It tries to solve this problem by being a kind of "universal common denominator" for describing interfaces with a lot of automated assistance in translating between it and various targets. While it does work (even between ST and C), and basically is better than anything else currently available, something like Ada's _Interfaces_ subsystem for each language would have far less "semantic impedance mismatch" problems. > Interfacing between two different languages is a serious problem. The > design of Ada 95 goes to a great deal of trouble to make interfacing > between Ada and C (etc) as easy as possible, but it's still painful. Agreed, but it is pretty trivial compared to the next task up the ladder: that of having a module's contextual semantics spelled out and codified as part of its overall semantic description, thereby allowing at least the possibility of true parts catalogues. Don't hold your breath... > So I don't buy the idea that you can just choose whatever language is > best for each module, and then paste them together. Then the software biz is never going to get beyond the artisan or blacksmith stage it's been stuck in for the last 35 odd years. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com