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: 103376,8a602a7f65bebaea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-18 15:09:52 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!washdc3-snf1!news.gtei.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.newsfeed.com!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!nntp5.savvis.net!uunet!dfw.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Abstract methods in ADA95
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <wccelan5rid.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:08:58 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <20021017-143635-828420@foorum.com> <3DAF0ECE.7080204@acm.org>
 <W%Kr9.84488$rz6.18170@sccrnsc02> <3DB0785A.1040304@acm.org>
 <mailman.1034976242.4221.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org> <3DB07F56.1040004@acm.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29932
Date: 2002-10-18T22:08:58+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> writes:

> David C. Hoos wrote:
> > The Smalltalk language defined "methods" from the beginning. So, unless you
> > don't consider Smalltalk an "actual programming language," your preceding
> > statement is incorrect.
> 
> Smalltalk has subprograms. Subprograms had existed for decades under
> that name before Smalltalk.

Subprograms?  I thought in those days they were called "subroutines"
or "routines".  Where does the word "subprogram" appear before Ada?

>... That Smalltalk uses the meaningless term
> "method" to refer to subprograms doesn't change the fact that they're
> subprograms.

Bah.  Subprogram, Procedure, method, routine, subroutine, function,
script, etc.
All essentially the same thing.
The only only one I object to is "function", which means something
in maths that is perverted by C and Ada and many others.

> I'm glad to be able to provide some small measure of interest and
> excitement to the readers of cla.

Me, too.  ;-)

- Bob