TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Matthew Heaney <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 5 Oct 1998 20:32:55 GMT
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]> (message from Dave Wood on Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:51:04 -0700)
X-To:
Reply-To:
Matthew Heaney <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
> > > * Java is a small language (not necessarily an advantage, but certainly a difference)
> > > * Java is "pure" OO. This is probably the biggest technical advantage of Java
> > > over Ada. A hybrid language like Ada95 or C++ tends to be the worst of two worlds.
>
> Where is it written that "pure OO" is a necessary or even
> desirable goal?  I believe in mixing the gene pool.

In a recent interview in IEEE Software (or was it Computer?), Barne
Stroustrup cited as an advantage the fact that C++ supports multiple
programming paradigms.  I agree with him.

The argument that "pure OO" is better is a vestige of our unbridled
enthusiam for all things object-oriented in the 80's.  Arguments like
this are just religion - what I call the Argument By Appeal to Higher
Authority.

What these people forget is that systems (both natural and artificial)
are constructed using a variety of techniques.  Nature doesn't care
about purity, only dogmatic programming language designers do.  Mother
Nature, and organizations that fund development of software systems,
only care about what works.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2