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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Real OO (was Choice of OO primitives in Ada95) Date: 1996/02/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140576882 references: organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-02-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Don says "Note that Ada only fully satisfies 2) and has a sub-optimal mechanism for 1)." Well that's no more than an opinion, you provide no objective criterion to justify this opinion. In fact I think that Ada 95 satisfies 1) more convincingly than Eiffel. This has been discussed many times on this news group, and I don't particularly have anything to add to those previous discussions, I think it has all been said before! The value of executable assertions has been hotly debated. To regard them as an essential part of OO programming seems odd to me, but of course people are free to say "x is essential for OO in my view" for almost any X (and all sorts of x's have been suggested). One trouble with executable assertions is that they are at the wrong level of abstraction, since they are confined to be at the semantic level of the language, and generally you want to talk about abstractions at a higher level.