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,a86f1b04a0a258b4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,a86f1b04a0a258b4
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: Stephen Leake <Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: UML & Ada
Date: 1998/06/17
Message-ID: <ubtrrzylj.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 363588402
References: <35868F4A.FC463980@email.mot.com>
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Date: 1998-06-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Dennis Miller <Dennis_Miller-P28917@email.mot.com> writes:

> Although Ada is considered an object-based language (not including Ada
> 95) as opposed to a OO language, is it possible to construct code in Ada
> from UML notation and vice versa?  Better yet, is it possible to get a
> high level of functionality from an OO notation system and implementing
> it with a object-based language?

Yes; Ada 83 is equivalent to a Turing machine, so it can be done. But
I suspect this may not be what you meant by "functionality".

On a more practical note, why are you excluding Ada 95? It is
certainly easier to get an Ada 95 compiler than an Ada 83 compiler for
most machines! (see http://www.gnat.com/ and http://www.aonix.com/).

> 
> Dennis Miller

-- Stephe