TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Al Christians <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Al Christians <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 1 Oct 1998 13:48:48 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Tucker Taft wrote:
>
> Just to wade into this one for fun...
>

Ditto

> Java doesn't have very good support for "value"-oriented abstractions
> like complex numbers, strings, RGB-colors, etc, corresponding
> to what would be a *non*-limited private type in Ada.
>
> It only has good support for "object"-oriented abstractions, which would
> correspond to *limited* private types in Ada.
>
> Smalltalk is like Java in this sense.
>

Also Eiffel, Modula-3, Modula-2 (new ISO OO Extensions).  Is the
mainstream consensus moving away from Ada?  (What does OO Cobol do?)
I suppose it has something to do with an urge to streamline and simplify
-- if you can only do OO one way (either value-oriented or reference
oriented), the Java way is not a bad choice, but I think that it
turns out to make things  more complicated rather than simpler.
There is some procedural language with no assignment statement
(but it does have a swap operator). Maybe that's the way to go.

Al

ATOM RSS1 RSS2