Re: The A-Z of Programming Languages: Ada, interview with S. Tucker Taft

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Ed Falis" <falis@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:op.ub96mfvb5afhvo@naropa...
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:58:36 -0400, Georg Bauhaus 
> <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote:
>
>> IIUC what Taft says in the interview, Ichbiah didn't like the
>> _way_ OOP was to be implemented. OTOH he had been working on a
>> Simula compiler at INRIA.  So maybe OOP alone was not the elephant.
>>
>
> I wasn't there, but rumor had it that JDI wanted to use the term "class" 
> (rather than "tagged type") for consistency with other OO languages.  I 
> don't know what his other disagreements were.

I *was* there, and that was a major contention between two groups. (I was on 
Ichbiah's side on this argument, but I didn't quit when I lost. ;-). I don't 
recall any technical objections that he had. The whole discussion 
degenerated into something rather theratical. I don't want to go into 
detail, because I don't want to speak ill of the dead (or of the living, for 
that matter).

I personally thought that using derived types (which no one understood in 
Ada 83) to implement classes was a mistake. Tucker was adamant on this 
point. I'm still not sure if he was right, but I'm used to it now. (Adding 
overriding indicators surely helps a lot, by indicating the programmers 
intent.)

                                             Randy.