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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C? (WAS: Re: Avoiding the second historic mistake) Date: 1997/07/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257906167 Distribution: world References: <5qs47k$duf@drn.zippo.com> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5qs47k$duf@drn.zippo.com> Nasser writes: > In article , mheaney@ni.net > says... > > > >Spoken like a true afficionado of inheritence! Well, I have some more news > >for you, Don. Nature (interpret that to mean God, if that suits you) has > >chosen aggregation as the essential means of systems construction. > > So, how does one explain what genetics tells us about DNA duplication > ftom parents to their children? It is pretty clear that Mathew is _not_ discussing this style of inheritance - a type of genealogy inheritance. If you want to draw this sort of analogy into it, then note: OOPL classification style inheritance is like Linean systematics, while what you are talking about is akin to phylogentic systematics (a kind of cladistics). The semantics of these are totally different. > offcourse, the human body is build by aggregation (eyes, ears, legs, arms, > etc.), but the poperty that those pieces have are mostly inherited. Actually, as long as you keep your terms and model types straight, the "parts" are indeed inherited (in the phylogenetic sense). /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari