Re: ada-c++ productivity

[jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter)]

Semantics. An object is defined as something with state that suffers
actions. Thus, a Boolean global variable is an object, and two seconds
of reflection will tell you that just about anything qualifies as an
object. Ada does a fine job of representing objects, thus, it is
object-oriented.

But not, of course, by THIS definition:

>"A language is object-oriented if and only if it satisfies the following
>requirements:

>- It supports objects that are data abstractions with an interface of named
>  operations and a hidden local state

>- Objects have an associated type (class)

>- Types (classes) may inherit attributes from supertypes (superclasses)"

But wait, the only thing missing is #3 (by the way, derived types get you
part way there). And #3 doesn't even CONTAIN the word "object". What it
talks about is "inheritance".

Aha! So the argument comes down to whether a language is inheritance
oriented or not, which I view as much more significant distinction.
Object-oriented certainly includes Ada. Inheritance-oriented certainly
does not include Ada (where are you, 9x?).

Personally, I'm much more interested in whether or not a language is
SOFTWARE ENGINEERING oriented or not. Ada and C++ certainly qualify,
with spec/body separation, formalization of interface, opaque types,
strong typing, etc. Languages like C and FORTRAN and COBOL don't make
the cut.
--
***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd
ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with
opinions like mine. 
              -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."