Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!odi!dlw
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Inheritance is a tool (was Re: Readability of Ada)
Message-ID: <1991May1.041252.14180@odi.com>
Date: 1 May 91 04:12:52 GMT
References: <jls.672527510@rutabaga> <1991Apr25.170356.21237@odin.diku.dk> <jls.672698352@rutabaga> <294@dumbcat.sf.ca.us> <jls.672984893@rutabaga>
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Lines: 19
In-Reply-To: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM's message of 30 Apr 91 04:14:53 GMT

In article <jls.672984893@rutabaga> jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:

   I stand fairly accused, but then so does Bjarne Stroustrup. I started
   out arguing that Ada was inherently more readable than C. He countered
   that C++ more naturally expresses inheritance than Ada. I countered
   that at least one common form of inheritance is poorly-enough supported
   in C++ that the Ada solution is just as good. Which deck is stacked
   sort of depends on who's ox is gored, yes? ;-)

Not at all.  Bjarne's comments were direct and to the point.  Your
reply is a non-sequitur.  C++ does express inheritance more naturally
than Ada, even if there are places where C++ inheritance doesn't do as
much as it might.

Suppose I say that suspension bridges are a better way to get across
major rivers than are beanbags.  You reply that suspension bridges
aren't useful to cross the center of Lake Ontario, showing that they
fail to do some water-crossing jobs that people might like to do.
That in no way negates my statement about suspension bridges.