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: 103376,5394d9ca5f955366 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: pointers & OOP Date: 1999/05/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 475388894 References: <$DL10CAsSgL3Iwj3@jr-and-assoc.demon.co.uk> <7gn7gr$fr5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7gq27t$vnd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7gv70i$id6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 926128580 226 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 7 May 1999 dennison@telepath.com wrote: > In article , > Brian Rogoff wrote: > > On Wed, 5 May 1999, John Robinson wrote: > > > > I think your original claim about the inability to do OOP without pointers > > is more convincing in the weak version too, since there are some things > > like heterogeneous collections (in general) and access discriminant tricks > > (in Ada 95) that require access types, but its obvious that you can use > > OOP features in a pointerless program. How much OOP do you have to use for > > an application to be a major OOP application? > > Perhaps the source of confusion is that dynamic dispatching from collections Dynamic dispatching *period*. Ada-83 is even weaker than C in providing the ability to fake OOP nicely, since it doesn't have access to subprogram. > is the main new thing that Ada95 tagged types bring to the table. The other > typical facets of OOP can be accomplished in Ada83 using minor tricks. So if > you are going to use Ada95 to do things you just couldn't do Ada83, you are > typically going to be using pointers. But you don't need pointers to classwide types to get dynamic dispatch. FWIW, my "OO" programs in Ada do make use of pointers. -- Brian