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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9629eba26884d78 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-04 01:16:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!freenix!proxad.net!213.200.89.82.MISMATCH!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: XML DOM Binding for Ada 95 - matter of style Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 10:04:32 +0200 Message-ID: References: <3f27bab4$1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net> <3F28F61D.4050504@noplace.com> <3F2A5303.6080902@noplace.com> <3F2BA9C8.9030700@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1059983971 26857771 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41159 Date: 2003-08-04T10:04:32+02:00 List-Id: On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 16:42:26 GMT, "Matthew Heaney" wrote: >"Marin David Condic" wrote in message >news:3F2BA9C8.9030700@noplace.com... >> >> I see tagged types as the way to fully implement the Object Oriented >> paradigm in Ada. > >To help convince you that inheritance-oriented programming is not the >solution to all problems, I suggest you read this interview with Stepanov: > >http://www.stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html > >Here are the money quotes: > >"I find OOP technically unsound. It attempts to decompose the world in terms >of interfaces that vary on a single type. To deal with the real problems you >need multisorted algebras - families of interfaces that span multiple types. >I find OOP philosophically unsound. It claims that everything is an object. >Even if it is true it is not very interesting - saying that everything is an >object is saying nothing at all. I find OOP methodologically wrong." > >Asked what he thought of Java, he replied that "...It keeps all the stuff >that I never use in C++ - inheritance, virtuals - OO gook - and removes the >stuff that I find useful." > >He says later that "...I spent years trying to find some use for inheritance >and virtuals, before I understood why that mechanism was fundamentally >flawed and should not be used." 1. What Stepanov addresses is actually not OO, or better to say not ADT, but its existing implementations in the languages like C++ and Ada. 2. Maybe dynamic polymorphism is flawed, but then the static has to be as well. 3. To say that everything is object, was indeed silly, but this was rather a mantra than a concept. I hope that nobody took it seriosly. (:-)) Fortunately, presently one hears this rubbish not so frequently as it was pair years ago. I think that his decision to switch to macros (aka C++ templates) was caused merely by the state of ADT, which was too underdeveloped then and remains underdeveloped now. It is easy to see that "families of interfaces" is again an interface and that "multiple types" constitute a type [a class-wide type, many thanks to Ada for this clarification]. Anyway, what could be an alternative? An untyped language? Who wants that again? --- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de