jos@anwar.UUCP (John Schneider) (04/12/85)
________________________________________________________________________________
I for one have read a number of ada books, programed with 3 different ada
compilers on 2 different operating system (VMS and UNIX) and I also
think that
ADA SUCKS!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
After reading reviews on ADA like the above, it seems to me that all of
them have negative attitudes. I have yet to read any comments that address
the real issues behind ADA. The authors of these reviews would probably
benefit from reading a book on object oriented programming. The real issue
behind ADA is that it supports a static implementation of object oriented
programming for general von Neumann architectures, not that the DoD has
mandated its use. (Other such languages are Modula II, Mainsail and Smalltalk).
It is clear that ADA can support a highly abstract method of software
implementation, while is is not so clear that other common block-structured
languages do more than offer data-structuring and simple run-time and type
checks.
It may prove true that the learning curve for efficient use of ADA and
languages like it will be steep, but that is no reason to be closed minded
about using an object oriented approach to programming. I would appreciate
any net discussion on software and hardware approaches to object oriented
programming.
John Schneider
{decvax,alegra}!philabs!hhb!josnet.lang@tekecs.UUCP (04/17/85)
From: tekecs!tekecs!patcl (Pat Clancy) >The real issue behind ADA is that it supports a static implementation >of object oriented programming for general von Neumann architectures, >not that the DoD has mandated its use. (Other such languages are >Modula II, Mainsail and Smalltalk). "Module" <> "object". Modula-2 is not an OOL, because there is no way to create multiple instantiations of a module (either statically or dynamically). Pat Clancy, Tektronix {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs}!tektronix!tekecs!patcl
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/18/85)
In article <151@anwar.UUCP> jos@anwar.UUCP (John Schneider) writes: > > >After reading reviews on ADA like the above, it seems to me that all of >them have negative attitudes. I have yet to read any comments that address >the real issues behind ADA. The authors of these reviews would probably >benefit from reading a book on object oriented programming. The real issue >behind ADA is that it supports a static implementation of object oriented >programming for general von Neumann architectures, not that the DoD has >mandated its use. (Other such languages are Modula II, Mainsail and Smalltalk). >It is clear that ADA can support a highly abstract method of software >implementation, while is is not so clear that other common block-structured >languages do more than offer data-structuring and simple run-time and type >checks. Ah, but I do not object to an object oriented language as such, *if* it has a reasonable implementation of the concept. My objection to Ada is *not* its object-orientation, it is its implimentation. It is an overly verbose, over-featured, kitchen-sink language. In fact it has all the *worst* features of PL/I and Cobol. Modula II is better, in fact almost livable, if it were not quite so much like an enhanced Pascal(tho it does address most of my objections to Pascal). I have not yet had a chance to really look at Smalltalk-80, it might have the flexibility and simplicity I want in a language. Where do I get a book on Mainsail, I have never seen any? -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
ee163acp@sdcc13.UUCP (DARIN JOHNSON) (04/19/85)
In article <5249@tekecs.UUCP>, net.lang@tekecs.UUCP writes: > From: tekecs!tekecs!patcl (Pat Clancy) > > > >The real issue behind ADA is that it supports a static implementation > >of object oriented programming for general von Neumann architectures, > >not that the DoD has mandated its use. (Other such languages are > >Modula II, Mainsail and Smalltalk). > > "Module" <> "object". Modula-2 is not an OOL, because there is > no way to create multiple instantiations of a module (either > statically or dynamically). > I thought that was the whole idea behind generics. Can't you instantiate these with differing types, etc.? Darin Johnson.
pete@umich.UUCP (Peter Lee) (04/25/85)
I don't know why this happens, but everyone always seems to forget about the programming language Simula when discussing static object- oriented programming languages. To my mind, Simula has all of the advantages of object-orientation that Ada provides, while at the same time avoiding many difficult (and largely unnecessary) features. If we're discussing object-oriented PLs, let's please include Simula and exclude Modula-2 -- it can hardly be counted as an OO PL! Peter Lee
brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III) (04/28/85)
> I don't know why this happens, but everyone always seems to forget > about the programming language Simula when discussing static object- > oriented programming languages. To my mind, Simula has all of the > advantages of object-orientation that Ada provides, while at the > same time avoiding many difficult (and largely unnecessary) features. All the Re: Re: Re: ADA news items were the result of a crass remark "ADA xxxxx" made by myself in a news article that was discussing of all things RELIGION. I think that I have been punished long enough for making this remark as reading all the resultant articles about ADA has been truly painful. Now someone is offended as this news group, net.arch, has been discussing ADA and not his favorite OO programming lingo. I apologize for my inital remark "ADA isucks" which was obviously in poor taste and was rooted in RELIGION anyway. Now that I have apologized for this could we please keep any discussion of language ADA to net.lang or net.lang.ADA. As part of my repentance I will subscribe to net.lang.ADA for the next month.
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (04/28/85)
> As part of my repentance I will subscribe to net.lang.ADA for the next month.
Don't do it. The Constitution forbids "...cruel and unusual punishment."
--
Ed Nather
Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!natherjans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman) (04/30/85)
(Eugene D. Brooks III) writes: > >I apologize for my inital remark "ADA sucks" which was obviously in poor >taste... could we please keep any discussion of language ADA to net.lang or >net.lang.ADA. As part of my repentance I will subscribe to net.lang.ADA for >the next month. Before you subscribe, you'll have to learn how to spell it: (To the tune of "Harrigan") Big A, little d a, A-d-a spells A-ada. (Sorry Michael Preston, I couldn't resist!) Seriously, you might just find something to like about it if you view it with pragmatism rathar than dogma. See you in net.lang.ada, Eugene. (Even the net moguls spell it wrong!) -- :::::: Jan Steinman Box 1000, MS 61-161 (w)503/685-2843 :::::: :::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans Wilsonville, OR 97070 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::