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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1dc0d0f1c69afb5a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Richard Riehle Subject: Is Ada an OO Language? (was => Re: polymophism) Date: 1996/11/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 200750860 references: <56q99a$5o3@rc1.vub.ac.be> <56skhq$9cg@hacgate2.hac.com> <570f4b$rbu@queeg.apci.net> <3295E624.726B@watson.ibm.com> content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII organization: National University, San Diego mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: Richard Riehle newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Norman H. Cohen wrote: in response to > James O'Connor wrote: > > > I once posted here, a long time ago, that I don't think Ada95 was an OO language. > > I received polite and informed rebuttals. I'll say it again, for the same reasons, and > > expect the same response so now hard feelings to anyone around. [ snipped a long and thoughtful dialogue ] Dr. Cohen concludes with this excellent observation: > Fine. As long as we are agreed that Ada makes it easy to implement an > OO design in an OO manner, who cares what labels you attach to the > language? (Personally, I think that a good definition of an OO language > is one that makes it easy to implement an OO design in an OO manner, and > that any other definition is misleading, but I certainly recognize your > right to define things misleadingly if it pleases you.) I have been wondering recently (only to discover I am not alone in so wondering) whether our current devotion to the notion of object is not leading us down a blind alley. Certainly, the fundamental idea of "object" has been useful, but it may also seduce us into excessive dependence on a concept that is, by its nature, self-limiting. Moreover, though the mechanisms and structures we associate with objects may be useful, perhaps they too are self limiting. For example, as we debate to virtue of single-inheritance versus multiple-inheritance (only one example) we can often miss the point of what we are actually doing with software . This is not to suggest returning to the old days before we thought about software in terms of objects. It simply is a question about the potential limitations inherent in our commonly accepted view of software objects. Perhaps the notion of object is too small an idea. Richard Riehle