Re: Ichibah [sic] flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X

Re: Ichibah [sic] flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X

[enterpoop.mit.edu!linus!think.com!rpi!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!univ-lyon1.fr!sc]

In article <1993Feb17.065421.12021@sei.cmu.edu>,
wellerd@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (David Weller) writes:
: 
: I believe [Ichbiah] also used it as a platform to make a final
: protest against the "with private" clause for tagged types.
: ...
: He was rather insistent on creating a class-based language, rather
: than the tagged types that we have now.

Both statements are erroneous.

The disagreement around tagged types was about _syntax_ (esthetics).
Not about semantics.

-- 
Magnus Kempe                "No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap."
magnus@lglsun.epfl.ch                                   -- Thomas Jefferson

Re: Ichibah [sic] flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X

[M. Scot t Buck]

Does anyone have a copy of the letter from Mr. Ichibah [sic] so that the
news group can review the specifics?

Scott

/------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
|  M. Scott Buck                      |  Phone:  (313) 574-5007                
|
|  U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command  |  DSN:          786-5007                
|
|  VETRONICS Technology Center        |                                        
|
|  Software Engineering Division      |  email:  msbuck@tacom-emh1.army.mil    
|
|  AMSTA-OS                           |          bucks@tacom-emh165.army.mil   
|
|  Warren, MI  48397-5000             |                                        
|
\------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/

begin 664 disclaimer
M5&AE('9I97=S(&5X<')E<W-E9"!I;B!T:&ES(&UE<W-A9V4@87)E(&UI;F4@
M86YD(&YO="!T:&4@=FEE=W,@;V8@;7D*96UP;&]Y97(L('1H92!5;FET960@
84W1A=&5S($%R;7DN"@I'3R!"3%5%(0H*
`
end

Re: Ichibah [sic] flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X

[Bob Kitzberger]

msbuck@tacom-emh1.army.mil (M. Scott Buck) writes:

>Does anyone have a copy of the letter from Mr. Ichibah [sic] so that the
>news group can review the specifics?

I was under the impression that the letter was sent to a private (semi-
private?) mailing list.  Dissemination beyond that list should be at
the discretion of the author, IMHO.

	.Bob.
----------------
Bob Kitzberger          VisiCom Laboratories, Inc.
rlk@visicom.com         10052 Mesa Ridge Court, San Diego CA 92121 USA
                        +1 619 457 2111    FAX +1 619 457 0888

Re: Ichibah [sic] flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X

[cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!wupost!howlan]

>I was under the impression that the letter was sent to a private (semi-
>private?) mailing list.  Dissemination beyond that list should be at
>the discretion of the author, IMHO.

Fine, any one have Ichbiah's (sorry about the initial type) email address
so someone can ask him to post his message?

Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: Ichibah [sic] flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X

[Magnus Kempe]

In article <1993Mar10.201515.6295@evb.com>, jgg@evb.com (John Goodsen) writes:
: If you don't make it easy for someone on the language search to see
: that Ada supports the concept of "class", then the acceptance of the
: language for OO development will not meet it's true potential.

In Ada 9X, you will be able to declare e.g. class-wide objects and
access types, such as:

	type Stack_Ref is
	  access Stack'class;
	
	A : Stack'class;

Is it easy enough to see that Ada 9X has "class" ?


: If the solution is to change the syntax from "tagged type" to
: "class" and leave it at that, then it doesn't sound like too
: much of a problem...

Contrary to OOP languages where objects per se are polymorphic,
Ada objects are monomorphic since Ada has by-value semantics.
Ada 9X programmers will _also_ be able to manage by-reference
semantics to have polymorphic references to objects, which is
what other OOP languages really provide.  Generally, a class
declaration in an OOPL implies that instances may belong to
the class itself or to a subclass, and that they are polymorphic;
in consequence, OOPLs rarely perform any significant amount of
strong, static type checking.

You don't want to throw away Ada's strong type system and static
checking, do you?

Anyway, I doubt that the adoption of Ada 9X will rest on the ability
of C++ programmers to grasp that "tagged" is somehow an equivalent of
their "class".  I don't think they will, since most C++ programmers
that I know enjoy C++ "because it's compatible with C".  Ada is
incompatible with C-oriented minds.  And that's a Good Thing.

If you want to learn of the many problems with C++, go read
  "C++?? A Critique of C++", Ian Joyner (e-mail: ian@syacus.acus.oz.au)
  "A Critique of the Inheritance Principle of C++", Markku Sakkinen,
  in Computing Systems, Vol. 5, No. 1, Winter 1992
  "The Darker Side of C++ Revisited", Markku Sakkinen,
  in Structured Programming (1992) 13: pp. 155-177.
(Warning: Referenceless flames and other hate-mail ignored on principle :-)

-- 
Magnus Kempe                "No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap."
magnus@lglsun.epfl.ch                                   -- Thomas Jefferson