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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e7db243dfa070d7 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.tornevall.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jeffrey Carter Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Do people who use Ada also use ocaml or F#? Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:58:40 -0700 Organization: TornevallNET - http://news.tornevall.net Message-ID: References: <83074951-f661-4ae2-87f2-10c359ea6471@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1afe3c8bb41a1ec2517ae0b97003f807 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: 7962828d2128e28dff05292e74a3b8e8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tornevall.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.0.10 X-Complaints-Language: Spoken language is english or swedish - NOT ITALIAN, FRENCH, GERMAN OR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE! In-Reply-To: X-UserIDNumber: 1738 X-Validate-Post: http://news.tornevall.net/validate.php?trace=7962828d2128e28dff05292e74a3b8e8 X-Complaints-Italiano: Non abbiamo padronanza della lingua italiana - se mandate una email scrivete solo in Inglese, grazie X-Posting-User: 0243687135df8c4b260dd4a9a93c79bd Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16023 Date: 2010-10-31T09:58:40-07:00 List-Id: On 10/30/2010 07:58 PM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote: > May be there was too much derivation levels ? Two levels should be > sufficient in most of case I feel. In some cases, as little as 2 levels. > As much as I understand it (I could not access any reference, as there > are near to none at all on the web), HOOD do have to deal with object, > and is not an implementation technique, but a analysis and design > method. Pretty sure HOOD is to be considered object-oriented (will have > to ask for a PDF book about HOOD later, I am thinking about it since > some time). Right. Object orientation is a design characteristic, not an implementation characteristic. > May be confusion between re-use and extension ? I know the most loud OOD > voices expose classification and re-use in the mean time, so that it > present derivation as both a way of classification and re-use. But > classification/extensions and re-use are different things. You indeed > re-use something when you extend, but to re-use is not to extend; and > the primary topic with extension, is only extension, not re-use, which > (the latter) only appears as a side-effect. No, just the belief that by using "OOP" (which means programming by type extension and dispatching, and has nothing to do with OO) your S/W is object oriented, without any understanding of object orientation (or any design, as far as I could tell, for that matter). -- Jeff Carter "Blessed are they who convert their neighbors' oxen, for they shall inhibit their girth." Monty Python's Life of Brian 83