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,FREEMAIL_FROM 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!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Do people who use Ada also use ocaml or F#? Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:58:38 +0100 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <83074951-f661-4ae2-87f2-10c359ea6471@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: gHYtk+mhCrTAX6LNXybaBQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.63 (Win32) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:15975 Date: 2010-10-31T03:58:38+01:00 List-Id: Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:31:01 +0100, Jeffrey Carter = a =C3=A9crit: > Not at all. I've been using Ada since 1984, and am reckoned to have a = = > passable understanding of it. I am reasonably familiar with the = > programming-by-extension features (see my use of a type extension to = > avoid access types in a recent discussion of S expressions), but I hav= e = > made several errors when dealing with code that uses these features in= = > their more normal, obfuscatory manner. Normally I would think it's jus= t = > a failing on my part, but the many problems others have had help me = > think that maybe it's not. May be there was too much derivation levels ? Two levels should be = sufficient in most of case I feel. > HOOD is a design method, and has nothing to do with programming by = > extension, which is an implementation technique that has nothing to do= = > with object orientedness. As much as I understand it (I could not access any reference, as there a= re = near to none at all on the web), HOOD do have to deal with object, and i= s = not an implementation technique, but a analysis and design method. Prett= y = sure HOOD is to be considered object-oriented (will have to ask for a PD= F = book about HOOD later, I am thinking about it since some time). > and (unfortunately) seen far too much S/W that uses programming by = > extension that is not object oriented. 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 th= e = primary topic with extension, is only extension, not re-use, which (the = = latter) only appears as a side-effect. Indeed, if you extend to re-use, you break object boundaries and = identifications. If you extend to extend, you are more likely to preserv= e = objects identifications. (as far as i can understand) -- = Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c=E2=80=99es= t pas pour = les chiens.