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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776
X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776
X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public
From: jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: ADA and Pascal work, C,C++,
 and Java are the only lheadaches you need!!
Date: 1997/11/07
Message-ID: <slrn667938.2ng.jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 287772716
References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com>
 <34566fe9.447229@news.mindspring.com> <345673af.1413708@news.mindspring.com>
 <3456b9f3.0@news.eznet.net> <3456e71b.3833189@news.mindspring.com>
 <MPG.ec1256665b68f1b98979d@news.primenet.com> <34591365.7E53@gsg.eds.com>
 <slrn6625jr.91f.jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>
 <qw667q5olbp.fsf@gargantua.enst.fr>
 <slrn664qpv.jh7.jstevens@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>
 <3462889F.625B4D36@flash.net>
Organization: USDA/NRCS Information Technology Center
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc
Date: 1997-11-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:18:55 -0600, Charles R. Lyttle <lyttlec@flash.net> wrote:
>John Stevens wrote:
>> I may, in fact, be impossible to create anything other than a semi-OO
>> language, or at best, a Hybrid OO language, with out starting from
>> a blank slate.
>>
>> John S.
>
>Ada was not an OO language. It was Object Based. Quiet a difference and the
>difference was deliberate.

Why so?

>Many of the OO constructs make any big appliation
>"brittle" and reduce safety.

How so?

>I am not fully convienced that all the Ada95
>changes were a good idea, but they do make it more Object Oriented and it is
>still a lot better than C++.

If Ada is the language best suited to producing portable, sold, safe
programs, and OO constructs make an application brittle, then why
would the new standard include them?

Seems like they lost track of their purpose.

>Have you noticed that as time goes by, Ada looks
>more like C++ and C++ looks more like Ada? I mean Templates for pity sake.

Templates.  Fagh!  This is something I never use.

To allow portability to the greatest number of compilers, I try never to
use stuff that sits to close to the "edge", if you know what I mean.

John S.