Re: Re=Fun_with_History why_wasnt_Ada83_object_oriented

[anon@att.net]

When the DOD looked for a language in the mid 1970s the dismissed both 
the procedural languages like Cobol or Fortran and functional languages 
like Lisp and C. They wanted a Tasking language.

And also at the time OOP (Object-oriented programming) was associated 
with AI (Artificial Intelligence) and directly link to languages like LISP 
and the educational Pascal language. Both languages were dismissed by the 
DOD. And so was S. Tucker Taft's OOP (Object-oriented programming) language.

But the ARG choose Taff's design in 1987 for Ada 95 and for the next 25 
years Taff has tried to insert Object-oriented features into Ada that was 
not initially designed for oop. Which has led to more problems with 
compatibility and maintainability of code.

And side note: OOPs did not come into its own until the 1990s and Ada 83
development was started in the late 1970s and finished in 1987.




In <7034d83a-698b-42fa-b13f-31461ed6e50e@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Gautier write-only <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 24 f=E9v, 22:32, tmo...@acm.org wrote:
>> > =A0The obvious repercussion of this is that there weren't any cheap
>> > =A0compilers (say, in the US$50 - US$100 range) that you could run on
>> > =A0your PC at home, so no one could experiment with the language. =A0Ad=
>a
>> > =A0essentially missed the boat in the PC revolution, and so was never
>>
>> =A0 The obvious lesson here is that advertising is supreme. =A0There was
>> in fact a $100 Ada that ran on DOS machines - I know because I bought
>> it to try out this new language named Ada. =A0I think the ad I saw was in
>> Byte magazine, but it surely wasn't as much press as Lotus or Ovation(?)
>> the never-did-exist system described in a cover article.
>
>Advertising is an important component, but not all.
>For instance mouth-to-ear (and black copies on diskettes...)
>contributed to the success of some compilers.
>The quality of the product is also primordial.
>The success of Turbo Pascal was due to a genial idea that the need of
>most programmers are not much having a compiler but having a full
>development tool focused on a quick development cycle. They offered:
>1) an integrated editor
>2) a fast native-code compiler (at the expense of compiled code
>quality, but nobody cared)
>Not sure if any Ada compiler - cheap or not - in the whole 80's was
>able to do that.
>_________________________
>Gautier's Ada programming
>http://sf.net/users/gdemont