TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:01:33 +0100
Reply-To: "Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
From: Jean-Pierre Rosen <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (25 lines)
Rick Duley a écrit :
> Sorry I was not very specific.  The accusation I hear is based on the 
> fact that the JAVA SDK comes with a huge collection of pre-defined 
> classes; some for GUI work, most for a vast range of functions.  Our 
> freshmen select from this collection and combine their selections in 
> other classes.  This is called Object-oriented Programming :(
> 
In "pure" OOP languages, everything is a class, leading to such 
contradictory things as "functional classes". The notions of modules and 
libraries seem to have disappeared from today's teaching.

In Ada, you have other kinds of modules than classes. We reserve the 
term "class" for certain kinds of packages, but many services are 
provided as packages that are not "classes". Hence the confusion.

Yes, Ada has a rich "library". Some modules are classes, others are not.

Why do people insist on everything being a class? Well, when your only 
tool is a hammer, every problem will look like a nail :-)

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
            J-P. Rosen ([log in to unmask])
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

ATOM RSS1 RSS2