Re: was Ada 83 in fact object oriented ?

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>]

On 10/05/2015 05:12 AM, Vincent wrote:
> 
> 1. Encapsulation of data and operations that manipulates that data into a
>    source code module that reflects the abstractions (the concepts) of the
>    problem. Ada 83 does this well.
> 
> 2. Classes of types, with a common interface, each of which encapsulates an
>    abstraction, to promote direct reuse of executable code (in fact the 
>    caller).  This contains the ideas of interfaces, virtual methods and so on.
>    Ada 2005 does this, but I thing it could have been designed better, even if
>    Ada 2005 corrected some of the worst flaws of Ada 95.
> 
> 3. Machines exchanging messages as abstract syntax trees. Only LISP, Smalltalk
>    and Objective C do this. But I personnaly find odd the idea of Objects
>    exchanging messages. If they "speak" shouldn't they be called "subjects" or
>    "agents" or "actors" ?

You see here the difference between things called "object oriented" because they
developed from thinking about objects and what role they play in the problem and
solution space, and things that have nothing to do with objects but were so
called because "object oriented" had become a buzzword meaning "good", much as
in earlier days things were called "structured" because "structured" had become
a buzzword meaning "good".

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I was hobbling along, minding my own business, all of a
sudden, up he comes, cures me! One minute I'm a leper with
a trade, next minute my livelihood's gone! Not so much as a
'by your leave!' You're cured, mate. Bloody do-gooder!"
Monty Python's Life of Brian
76