Yeah I remember the days when OOP didnt even exist and no one could even conceive of describing code parts as elements of an object. Times changed, and from what I know if C++, Java, and Ada. in my book it shouldn't even be a subject of conversation, Ada has the others beat hands down period. A agree with you that JVM is "the" strong point of Java, so when do we make our AVM then ? (Ada Virtual Machines) huh? There's a thought from your friendly neighborhood Software Developer. Stephane Richard Software Developer > I find it very interesting that the thread about "Problems with C-class > languages" became so lengthy, and in particular that at the end it > centered > around what is obviously a very confusing semantics in Java. This > confusion, itself, is quite telling. I cannot imagine there ever being > such an extended discussion about any feature of Ada, even among the most > novice students. > > This reminds me of the days I first tried to understand what this "Object > Oriented" fuss was all about in the late '80s. Keep in mind that by then > I > had already had 2 decades of experience in the software industry and had > completed both my MS (in Programming Languages) and PhD degrees in > Computer > Science. Most of my work to that point had been with complex concurrent > and real time systems, including a LOT of work in computer communications > systems. > > I read the books by Ellis and Stoustrup and by Lipmann, as well as MANY > papers presented at one or another OOPSLA. For the longest time I was > VERY > CONFUSED. I just could not understand much of what I read. Finally I > just > sat down and implemented a bunch of "Object Oriented" stuff in Ada83 (and, > yes, I DID find a couple of different ways to implement inheritance). I > was very pleased at the obvious productivity and readability gains my OO > stuff showed over the more traditional stuff I had written before. So > what > was all this never-ending hype about OO versus Object-based, polymorphism, > multiple inheritance, etc., etc.? > > Please understand that whatever I say next about those "Gurus of OO" in > those early days, I really do believe they are very intelligent, > well-meaning people. > > It finally dawned on me that the reason I was so confused is that those > "Gurus of OO" were (and are) absolutely and hopelessly CONFUSED!!! For > all > their intelligence, they really do not have a (pragmatic) clue about what > software is all about, let alone what is the role of a programming > language. They just jibber on and on about Cheshire Cats and Toad > Stools. And they don't even need to do opium or marijuana to get there! > > So, naturally, C++ and Java syntax/semantics is very confusing. The > tragic > part is that most people who use it don't even know they don't understand > it. They just use it, and they believe that is the way the world should > be. Stop bothering them with details!! > > All that aside, what IS the good news about C++ and Java? As near as I > can > tell, there is really only one benefit of Java - the JVM. That's right, > the language itself is just another C, with a few additional bells and > whistle, but with no particular value (except a lot of negative value), as > a programming language. > > The JVM is Java's only real asset. And, unfortunately, because it was > implemented to implement Java, the JVM is woefully inadequate for a lot of > purposes. But at least it is there and it provides a solid basis for > platform/OS-independent software development. (Does anyone remember the > days when "portability" was one big reason many people argued for using > Ada, and the C-world people universally argued that > platform/OS-independence was not important to them? I do. Later they > just > started billing C as a "portable language", even though that was not at > all > true. Somewhere in my archives I have an early version of the User Manual > for Borland C++. The very first sentence in that book congratulates you > on > deciding to use a "portable language".) > > Yes, there you have it. So what is the "Good news" about C++? I honestly > can't think of a thing, except, for teaching purposes, it provides a LOT > of > good examples of how NOT to specify a language. Then, I suppose we should > give C++ some credit because it was such a miserable failure that many of > its devotees quickly "Jumped to Java" when the opportunity arose, meaning > we have that much less legacy C++ crap to deal with. But, in reality, C++ > will likely go down in history as the greatest hoax ever perpetrated by > one > group of humans on the whole of society. > > sro > > P.S. Sorry for the length of this message. I'm just in "one of those > moods" today. We have 2 1/2 inches of fresh powder out there, and it is > still snowing. I'm looking out my window at a veritable winter > wonderland. I love it! I think I'll go get my skis on!! > 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. > -- Stephane Richard Software Developer [log in to unmask] Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net