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: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Gene Ouye <geneo@rational.com>
Subject: Re: Real OO (was Choice of OO primitives in Ada95)
Date: 1996/02/26
Message-ID: <NEWTNews.825374195.12371.geneo@medusa.ppp.rational.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 141323362
references: <JSA.96Feb20143818@organon.com> <Dn5qGH.9xH@assip.csasyd.oz>
 <dewar.824966245@schonberg>
 <NEWTNews.825117870.31373.geneo@medusa.ppp.rational.com>
  <3131D2D1.2658@apci.net>
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
organization: Rational Software Corporation
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-02-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


James O'Connor wrote:
> You also realize that to the Smalltalk world, the argument is interesting 
> because, from a Smalltalk perspective, Ada95 and C++ have much more in 
> common than the do differeneces...

True, but most of the arguing in this thread(s) was over Eiffel vs Ada.  
I actually found it refreshing after the endless "C/C++ sucks" threads,
Unfortunately, I've gained most of my Smalltalk knowledge from the 
endless "C++ is not (or, Smalltalk is) a pure OO language" threads on 
comp.object.  Maybe we could use more Smalltalk vs. Ada arguments in 
this group...
                       ;-)

Gene Ouye <geneo@rational.com>