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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: was Ada 83 in fact object oriented ? Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:47:57 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: jSS3it0g+GyWYSMU5pi+5g.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:27824 Date: 2015-09-25T10:47:57+02:00 List-Id: On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:30:29 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote: > Le 25/09/2015 10:11, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit : >> Regarding extension, it is just one implementation of inheritance chosen >> for its simplicity. It has issues, lots of, e.g. with substitutability, >> multiple inheritance etc. A class can be built by many ways, extension is >> only one of them. > > Yes, but my point (and I know you -and many others- disagree with that!) > is that inheritance is NOT required for OO. It is just one among many > ways of organizing objects. Right, this is why it is *not* OO. IMO, OO is about creating and designing objects. You can organize only things you already have. That is less than OO and even less than Ada 83 where you do can create new types for new objects. Organizing existing objects was already possible in FORTRAN-IV... -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de