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:
Bruce Hennessy <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Bruce Hennessy <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:03:18 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
A B S O L U T E L Y ! ! ! ! ! ! !

And surely Ada 95 is both O and O ;-)

Remember, you are not designing language constructs, you are designing a
collective system of interacting objects. Packages are an excellent way to
encapsulate data and responsibilities - CLASS or OBJECT!



-----Original Message-----
From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Alexandre E. Kopilovitch
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Designing for Ada 95?


>First, Ada95 is fully OO.

Surely yes for the first "O", but not so certain for the second one.

>  If you don't think so, would you be so kind as to
>tell us which OO feature is missing from the language?

The problem is exactly opposite: Ada95 has all conventional OO features, but
it also has very important features that do not belong to common OO stuff.
For example, Ada packages. Do you think that the UML is right tool for
design
and representation of Ada packages?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2