Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!vtserf!creatures!csgrad!holliday
From: holliday@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Glenn Holliday)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: ADT vs. Objects
Summary: ADT can be theory for objects
Keywords: ADT, object, theory, model
Message-ID: <721@creatures.cs.vt.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 90 03:37:51 GMT
References: <4255@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <658426218.13725@minster.york.ac.uk> <1990Nov13.094257.15308@tukki.jyu.fi> <1990Nov13.212012.3662@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: usenet@creatures.cs.vt.edu
Reply-To: holliday@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Glenn Holliday)
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science, Blacksburg, VA
Lines: 14

In article <4255@oasys.dt.navy.mil> flitter@atisun.dt.navy.mil (Lance Flitter) writes:
>   Greetings. I was wondering if someone would venture a good description
>of the difference between Abstract Data Types and Objects. Is there a
>difference? Is one a subset of the other?

	ADT provides a nice theoretic basis for playing with objects
(we're talking model flavor of theory here).  Eiffel fits closely with
ADT theory.  But I haven't seen anyone fitting inheritance into this.

--

Glenn       | holliday@csgrad.cs.vt.edu            OR
Holliday    | glenn%bayberry@chado.fidonet.org     OR
            | GHOLLID@access.nswc.navy.mil          (Internet)