TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Nasser Abbasi <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:31:51 -0800
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> (message from Samuel Mize on Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:20:42 -0600)
Reply-To: Nasser Abbasi <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (30 lines)
> Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>

>I have written code from an object-based design in a procedural
>language like Fortran 90 (I used Ada).

does F90 support a 'class' also?
I think a language that does not have a class construct in it, will
be very hard to use to do OO stuff in it. a class is the
fundamental building block for OO systems. Even Ada95 does not
have a 'class' construct, and that is what hurt it. even though
you can do OO in Ada95, it is quit different in appearance from
what became the norm. look at all the OO languages out there and
you'll see that they all have a 'class' in them, except Ada.

any way, I dont think thinking in OO terms is that critical
for numerical stuff, I mean, sending a message to a number object
asking it to increase its value by 1 is not something I want to
be doing when I write math/numeric software, for that I'll
use procedural thinking, and it is more suitable I think for it.

but for almost anything else, I think OO thinking is better, and
for Ada, I dont feel it has the right construct for that kind
of methodology, too bad, since the language fundamentals are
great, they just got the OO stuff in Ada added to it in the
wrong way.

my 2 cents.

Nasser

ATOM RSS1 RSS2