At 06:33 PM 2/10/01 -0500, Michael Feldman wrote:

>True. But much of this discussion goes back to the early 70s with
>Smalltalk (and possibly even further, to the late 60s with Simula).
>It _certainly_ did not start with C++, which first emerged in the
>early 80s, about the same time as Ada 83. Originally called "C with
>Classes", it was named C++ around 1986, if memory serves.
>
>Dynamic dispatching was a technique that was known to the Green team
>(whose design became Ada). [THere was a myth around that they didn't
>know about this OO stuff, but in fact, Ichbiah (and maybe others on
>the team) had worked on a Simula compiler and knew very well what
>this was about.] Some of the early Ada writing indicated that they
>were worried about the runtime performance of dynamic dispatching.

Ah!  Some good historical tid bits.  I knew some of this, but not all.

. . .

>And of course there was no validation suite for C++, so these design
>bugs slipped through more easily than they could have with Ada.
>

Yes, the validation suite.  This is a VERY key point and one that I should
raise more often.  But it just seems so natural to me that there SHOULD be
a validation suite, for EVERY language.  So, I tend to not mention it,
assuming others have the same view.

Why is our industry so far behind in their view of something so obviously
beneficial as a compiler validation process?  This confounds me.

sro


S. Ron Oliver, semi-retired professor of Computer Science and Computer
Engineering.  www.csc.calpoly.edu/~sroliver

caress Corporation is proud to be the U.S. representative for Top Graph'X,
developers of high quality software components, using Ada.  For more
information, check out www.topgraphx.com.

Tired of sucky software! ?  Check out www.caressCorp.com and follow the
links to software sucks and The Oliver Academy.