Yeah I remember the days when OOP didnt even exist and no one could even
conceive of describing code parts as elements of an object. Times changed, and
from what I know if C++, Java, and Ada. in my book it shouldn't even be a
subject of conversation, Ada has the others beat hands down period.
A agree with you that JVM is "the" strong point of Java, so when do we make
our AVM then ? (Ada Virtual Machines) huh?
There's a thought from your friendly neighborhood Software Developer.
> I find it very interesting that the thread about "Problems with C-class
> languages" became so lengthy, and in particular that at the end it
> around what is obviously a very confusing semantics in Java. This
> confusion, itself, is quite telling. I cannot imagine there ever being
> such an extended discussion about any feature of Ada, even among the most
> novice students.
> This reminds me of the days I first tried to understand what this "Object
> Oriented" fuss was all about in the late '80s. Keep in mind that by then
> had already had 2 decades of experience in the software industry and had
> completed both my MS (in Programming Languages) and PhD degrees in
> Science. Most of my work to that point had been with complex concurrent
> and real time systems, including a LOT of work in computer communications
> I read the books by Ellis and Stoustrup and by Lipmann, as well as MANY
> papers presented at one or another OOPSLA. For the longest time I was
> CONFUSED. I just could not understand much of what I read. Finally I
> sat down and implemented a bunch of "Object Oriented" stuff in Ada83 (and,
> yes, I DID find a couple of different ways to implement inheritance). I
> was very pleased at the obvious productivity and readability gains my OO
> stuff showed over the more traditional stuff I had written before. So
> was all this never-ending hype about OO versus Object-based, polymorphism,
> multiple inheritance, etc., etc.?
> Please understand that whatever I say next about those "Gurus of OO" in
> those early days, I really do believe they are very intelligent,
> well-meaning people.
> It finally dawned on me that the reason I was so confused is that those
> "Gurus of OO" were (and are) absolutely and hopelessly CONFUSED!!! For
> their intelligence, they really do not have a (pragmatic) clue about what
> software is all about, let alone what is the role of a programming
> language. They just jibber on and on about Cheshire Cats and Toad
> Stools. And they don't even need to do opium or marijuana to get there!
> So, naturally, C++ and Java syntax/semantics is very confusing. The
> part is that most people who use it don't even know they don't understand
> it. They just use it, and they believe that is the way the world should
> be. Stop bothering them with details!!
> All that aside, what IS the good news about C++ and Java? As near as I
> tell, there is really only one benefit of Java - the JVM. That's right,
> the language itself is just another C, with a few additional bells and
> whistle, but with no particular value (except a lot of negative value), as
> a programming language.
> The JVM is Java's only real asset. And, unfortunately, because it was
> implemented to implement Java, the JVM is woefully inadequate for a lot of
> purposes. But at least it is there and it provides a solid basis for
> platform/OS-independent software development. (Does anyone remember the
> days when "portability" was one big reason many people argued for using
> Ada, and the C-world people universally argued that
> platform/OS-independence was not important to them? I do. Later they
> started billing C as a "portable language", even though that was not at
> true. Somewhere in my archives I have an early version of the User Manual
> for Borland C++. The very first sentence in that book congratulates you
> deciding to use a "portable language".)
> Yes, there you have it. So what is the "Good news" about C++? I honestly
> can't think of a thing, except, for teaching purposes, it provides a LOT
> good examples of how NOT to specify a language. Then, I suppose we should
> give C++ some credit because it was such a miserable failure that many of
> its devotees quickly "Jumped to Java" when the opportunity arose, meaning
> we have that much less legacy C++ crap to deal with. But, in reality, C++
> will likely go down in history as the greatest hoax ever perpetrated by
> group of humans on the whole of society.
> P.S. Sorry for the length of this message. I'm just in "one of those
> moods" today. We have 2 1/2 inches of fresh powder out there, and it is
> still snowing. I'm looking out my window at a veritable winter
> wonderland. I love it! I think I'll go get my skis on!!
> S. Ron Oliver, semi-retired professor of Computer Science and Computer
> Engineering. www.csc.calpoly.edu/~sroliver
> caress Corporation is proud to be the U.S. representative for Top Graph'X,
> developers of high quality software components, using Ada. For more
> information, check out www.topgraphx.com.
> Tired of sucky software! ? Check out www.caressCorp.com and follow the
> links to software sucks and The Oliver Academy.
[log in to unmask]
Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net