TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


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: 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)
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

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.