Re: Ada

[oconnordm@CRD.GE.COM (Dennis M. O'Connor)]

"[...*...]" below means I've deleted something I consider an ad-hominem,
that IMHO added nothing constructive to the conversation. My apologies
if I offend anyone.

tyler@procase (William B. Tyler) writes:
] In article <...> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
] > [...*...]
] >   Software Productivity Solutions has a product called Classic Ada
] >    which serves as a Smalltalk-based object-oriented preprocessor 
] >   for Ada-language software developers.  Another object-oriented approach
] >   along the lines of Zetalisp's Flavors (InnovAda) will soon be on the 
] >   market as well. 
] > [...*...]
] 
] [...*...]  Ada ... has no capability for object oriented programming.

My understanding is that "support for OOP" is not a YES-NO question.
IMHO, Ada does support objects, if not OOP : does not a package represent
a passive object, and a task represent an active one ? Doesn't a
"task type" has all the characteristics of a class (and even more) ?
What Ada doesn't support is inheritance. So, Ada's support for OOP
is limited, not non-existant. It's support for Object-Oriented Design
(OOD) is a different issue.

] Use of these extensions amounts to use of a different language, especially
] since Ada admits no extensions by definition.

However, if you believe that the primary benefit of OOP is found in
the design stage (OOD), then using something like Classic Ada for design,
and then automatically translating it into Ada (which is, I believe,
how these products work) is probably an option even in an "Ada-only"
project. (Any DoD project participants care to comment ?) It is certainly
an option for those who use Ada because they like the features of the
language, not because of a DoD mandate. Yes, such people exist. ;-)

] >  [...*...] if you aren't bright enough to handle Ada, I suggest that
] >   you stay away from it.  
] 
] This seems to be an admission that Ada has failed in a very important
] area of language design.  If it requires brilliance for proper use,
] it is certainly inappropriate as a vehicle for implementing large
] projects with many programmers, some at least of whom will be of
] average intelligence.

What is this "you gotta be smart to use Ada" stuff anyway ? Let's
face it : if you are using the complex features of any language, it
should be because the design is complex, not because of the the
language you are implementing in. And if the design is complex,
you'd better be smart no matter what language you use.

If a language forces you to implement a simple design in
a complex way, I`d say it's flawed. Feel free to point
out such flaws in Ada to the Ada-9X commitee, please !

In a large project with programmers of varying degrees of talent,
"average" (yuck I hate that word) programmers should be assigned
tasks of "average" difficulty, and the tough stuff should be
done by the most talented people. This, like many other issues,
is language-independant.

It has to be admitted, of course, that many languages wind up associated 
with a particular design methodology and project management philosophy.
But "correlation is not causation", eh ?

] Why don't you give it a rest [...] try keeping out of the C newsgroup.

I don't really understand the emnity between some of the C and Ada
proponents. Why the emotions ? What are people afraid of ? So
one or both languages doesn't take over the world, so what ?
Eventually (I hope) both will be obsolete in their present forms.
Hopefully, both can learn form each other, and evolve into
something better.

Nobody should mind constructive criticism, eh ?
--
  Dennis O'Connor      OCONNORDM@CRD.GE.COM      UUNET!CRD.GE.COM!OCONNOR
  "Let's take a little off the top ... a bit off the sides ...
    trim the back a bit ... Surprise ! You've been bald-ed !"