Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucunix.san.uc.edu!bacon From: bacon@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Edward M. Bacon) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: ada-c++ productivity Message-ID: <1991Mar20.201633.15564@ucunix.san.uc.edu> Date: 20 Mar 91 20:16:33 GMT References: <1991Mar7.163106.29477@wdl1.wdl.loral.com> <1991Mar10.151220.2581@forwiss.uni-passau.de> <11966@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Distribution: usa Organization: University of Cincinnati Lines: 15 In article jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: >Semantics. An object is defined as something with state that suffers >actions. Thus, a Boolean global variable is an object, and two seconds >of reflection will tell you that just about anything qualifies as an >object. Ada does a fine job of representing objects, thus, it is >object-oriented. Five years ago, when I first started using Ada and learning about OOD, it rapidly became obvious there two distinct uses for the word "Object", 1) the Object-Oriented camp and 2) the Ada LRM. It seemed as if at some time in the past the two diverged, never to meet again. Neither camp seems willing to change, so we poor grunts have to tell them apart by context. I don't know what the history of this is, and I don't know which has the more valid copyright on the word, but I think if you held a vote today the O-O camp would win by a landslide.