HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garry@alice.att.com (garry hodgson)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: comparing object-oriented platforms
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:15:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23763
Reply-To: garry@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T, Bell Labs

In article <2012@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>In article <23741@alice.att.com> garry@alice.UUCP () writes:
>
>>[ Many lines of Eiffel cheerleading,
>>  including lots of interesting technical aspects, deleted ]
>
>[...]
>
>
>[ Quotes asserting C++ is not real OO and refutations by Garry ]
>
>
>Hold on everyone.  PLEASE lets not have a language war.

I had no intention of holding a language war.  In fact, Eiffel
sounds very interesting to me.  I am not currently in a position
where I can use it, but that does not mean I cannot or will not
see its merits.

I was merely objecting to the tone in a previous post, and
the nonsense I am often subjected to here, that C++ is not
*real* OO, and that there is something inherently deficient
in those who would use it.






-- 
Garry Hodgson			A slow winter day
AT&T Bell Labs			A night like forever
garry@alice.att.com		Sink like a stone
att!alice!garry			Float like a feather
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: Passing functions as parameters in an OO environment
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:24:39 GMT

In <1992Sep23.080013.19249@jyu.fi> sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:

>In article <m77nzwn.objsys@netcom.com> Bob Hathaway <objsys@netcom.com> writes:
>>C++ has function pointers and pointers to members for member functions
>>(methods).  Nothing that doesn't fit in here...

>But C++ is a highly hybrid language.  It also has things like
>pointer arithmetic, which is extremely contrary to object orientation.
>In more purely OO languages, procedures typically cannot be used as
>parameters.  However, I too regard this as a defect:  regarding
>procedures as first-class entities when needed would not do any harm
>to object orientation.

Which purely object-oriented languages are you referring to? While
Smalltalk doesn't let you pass methods as such, you can pass either
blocks or method names, both of which achieve the desired effect. I
would be extremely surprised if CLOS didn't let you pass functions
around, being derived from LISP. I don't know about Eiffel or Simula,
but my opinion of them would go down considerably if I found out they
couldn't do this.  I'd consider it a requirement for a decent
programming language.

-- 
 Alan Knight  knight@mrco.carleton.ca  +1 613 788 2600x5783   Join
 Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering                the
 Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6        LPF

Newsgroups: comp.object
From: Bob Hathaway <objsys@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Which in object diagram should a main program correspond to?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 07:13:09 GMT
Organization: Object Systesm

In article <2AC35D74.17688@ics.uci.edu> song@ics.uci.edu (Xiping Song) writes:
>...[On Booch's notation]...
>However, which are the corresponents for a main program and subprograms?
>It is not as clear as for other notations. It seems that it can correspond
>a class, class utility, an object, even an operation(?).

Subprograms are operation templates, not classes or objects (in the standard
form anyway but classes use operation templates for methods too).

>What do you think?

I think (in general) main programs should be active objects or threads; i.e.
no special cases.  What do you think about that?-)

bob
objsys@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: etxjnor@solsta.ericsson.se (Jan Norden  TX/DK)
Subject: Re: Rambaugh drawing tool
Organization: Ericsson
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:10:50 GMT

etxjnor@solsta.ericsson.se (Jan Norden  TX/DK) writes:

>I don't need anything fancy, just a quick way to draw and edit the diagrams.
>(If there is more, that would be nice of course, but not really
>needed at this point).

>The operating environment should be SUN4 or PC.

>Please reply via a-mail. I will summarize if there is interest.

Within a few hours of posting this I have recieved many requests for
a summary. So, I will summarize (no more requests please), and to
all you vendors out there, a LOT of people seem to want this.

--
--
Jan Norden, Ericsson Telecom AB | E-mail: etxjnor@solsta.ericsson.se
KS/ETX/TX/DK                    | Voice.: +46 54 193168 Fax...: +46 54 152509
S-652 21 KARLSTAD , SWEDEN      | Memo..: ERI.ETX.ETXJNOR
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: comparing object-oriented platforms
From: alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins)
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:25:16 GMT
Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK
In-reply-to: maniattb@cs.rpi.edu's message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:52:35 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:52:35 GMT, maniattb@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty) said:

> |> So you can tune the collection for real time
> |> applications to when the resources are available for collection and not impact
> |> time critical method operations. This is not new. It has always been there in
> |> Eiffel since the first release.

> This does not seem safe, (I wish this weren't true).  The whole point of garbage
> collection is that when the system is out of memory, it can check the allocated
> memory to see which parts of the heap are allocated but unreferenced (and
> therefore garbage).

No, the point of garbage collection is to avoid the system becoming out of
memory. The simplest way to do this is to wait till it is, then collect, but
that is (as you have pointed out) unsuitable if it may happen in a critical
region. An incremental collector will reclaim resources during non-critical 
regions before ever getting an out-of-memory system.
For safety critical systems the need to prove that memory limits are never
exceeded is a problem with or without collection.
--
Alan Braggins, Shape Data (A Division of EDS Ltd), Cambridge, UK +44-223-316673
   "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
 "My employer does not necessarily share my views - but I'm working on it."
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: "Ronald C. Schultz" <p00058@psilink.com>
Subject: Looking for Ptech Information
Organization: Berard Software Engineering, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:27:54 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

I am looking for information on a tool named Ptech which I believe is an 
OO CASE tool which is supposed to support the Martin and Odell method.  
Does anyone know of this product and a point of contact?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Schultz 
Berard Software Engineering, Inc.
Columbus, Ohio Office                   Headquarters
5634 Claire Court                       101 Lakeforest Blvd.
Dublin, Ohio 43017-2440                 Gaithersburg, Md.  20877
(614) 798-0295 Phone                    (301) 417-9884 Phone
(614) 798-0296 FAX                      (301) 417-0021 FAX
ron@bse.com                             info@bse.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: st1lv@elroy.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen)
Subject: OOP not GUT of programming?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:55:00 GMT

Hello,  back again with another question.

OOP is gaining popularity right now and pretty soon I'm sure they will be trying
to use it to do everything but is OOD/P really *that* good?

I have been talking to a lot of people about this lately and some had the view
that OOP was basically a good algorithm for handling the data base handling
aspect of a solution be it an OS, a Database, or a guided missile program but
that it was not appropriate for writing, say, a compiler, a text editor and
so on.

What do you think?  I'd appreciate your views on this as I am floundering around
looking for a topic to write a paper on and 'the limits of the ood paradigm' 
seems pretty good right now.
Cheers...
---
Stephen McLeod
The Eternal? Student
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: nh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (nicholas.hounsome)
Subject: Re: Competition
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:51:20 GMT

From article <1992Oct5.144311.17256@bnr.co.uk>, by dsr@bnr.co.uk:
> There's many people on the net who all enjoy their own methodology
> and prefer it to all others.  Would any of these people care to try
> out their chosen OO methodology on a Case Study of a system?
> 
[deleted]
> 
> This is the case study...
> 
> 
>> Copyright: Audrey Mayes, Loughborough University
>>
>> Case Study:  System for planning crops in a garden
>> 
>> The system is required to store all the information required to allow
>> a gardener to plan the growth of crops.  There is a requirement to
>> plan the maturation of crops, for example to avoid crops maturing when
>> the gardener is on holiday or when there is a strong likelihood of
>> attack by pests.  The variation in planting time and growth period
>> of a crop depending on the region of the country needs to be catered
>> for.  The gardener also wishes to be able to divide the garden into 
>> plots to allow for crop rotation to be carried out.  Reports should
>> be produced to give relevant information about the productivity of
>> the vegetable garden.  The gardener also requires to be able to add
>> or change the information concerning crops.
> 
> 
> Dave

This is yet another example of how not to evaluate methodologies and/or
CASE tools. I thought that everyone had learnt the lesson long ago that
a 100page problem is not comparable to 100 one page problems. 
A toy methodology will handle toy problems, and it will probably handle
them better than  a big boys' methodology but that doesn't mean that it will
handle big boys' problems better. If this competition was worth doing
it would (it has) already be done and there would not be the hundreds of
methodologies that exist today, just one. 

Nick Hounsome

Xref: sparky comp.object:3755 comp.lang.smalltalk:1947 comp.lang.eiffel:1178
From: tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: comparing object-oriented platforms
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:45:47 GMT
Reply-To: tmb@idiap.ch
Organization: IDIAP (Institut Dalle Molle d'Intelligence Artificielle
	Perceptive)
In-reply-to: burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu's message of 6 Oct 92 10:11:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.101157.16745@news2.cis.umn.edu> burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu (Paul Burchard) writes:

   On a slightly different note, one thing that seems to concern a lot
   of the proponents of strong compile-time type-checking is the
   mysterious, elusive nature of the errors which can occur with
   incorrectly typed data.  While this is true of languages like C++
   which merely provide a front for structure pointers whose type
   cannot be verified at run time, it is not true of OOP languages
   with run-time binding which by necessity maintain type info at run
   time (e.g. in Obj-C, the first instance var of every is its class).
   If I go wild and send messages to the wrong types of objects, I
   don't get a memory violation or corrupted data, but rather the
   helpful message

	   Button does not respond to selector -wowCheckThis:outMan:

   Of course, this still aborts the program, but at least there's some
   belated type checking going on here.

Statically typed languages should not get any runtime type errors,
informative or otherwise. Of course, that's an ideal that only
few programming languages achieve...


Xref: sparky comp.object:3757 comp.lang.smalltalk:1951 comp.lang.eiffel:1179
From: Stephen Cooper <stephen@csd.uu.se>
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: comparing object-oriented platforms
Date: 29 Sep 1992 08:10:54 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-5.csd.uu.se
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
X-XXMessage-ID: <A6EDCE1C9A020C8D@mac-5.csd.uu.se>
X-XXDate: Tue, 29 Sep 92 08:10:52 GMT

In article <-t!p#_a.nagle@netcom.com> John Nagle, nagle@netcom.com writes:
>>I'm currently evaluating several object-oriented development platforms
>>and I was wondering if any of you would like to share your opinions on
>>platforms that you prefer or know about.  It'd be especially useful to
hear
>>comparisons between different platforms (for instance, Eiffel v.
Smalltalk).
>
>      The language situation is roughly as follows:
[...long list deleted...]
Anyone have any info. on Simula?  How OO is it?  Is it a good pedagogic
lang?  I'll be teaching a course in OOP in Dec, and was sold on
Smalltalk, but a friend said I should check up on Simula.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Cooper  	       	       	+46-(0)18-18 10 73 (voice)
Computing Science Dept  	       	+46-(0)18-52 12 70 (fax) 
Uppsala University, Sweden      	stephen@csd.uu.se
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu (Paul Burchard)
Subject: Re: comparing object-oriented platforms
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:57:10 GMT

In article <TMB.92Oct4182305@arolla.idiap.ch> tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M.  
Breuel) writes:
> In article <1992Oct4.003433.22712@news2.cis.umn.edu> burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu (Paul Burchard) writes:
> 
>    In article <TMB.92Oct3215246@arolla.idiap.ch> tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M.  
>    Breuel) writes:
>    > In article <ken8Xe_00awRQ5OHYd@andrew.cmu.edu> osoelgaultier+@CMU.EDU (Stefan Monnier) writes:
>    > >Static type checking makes it harder to develop code in limited
>    > >time (prototype doesn't have to be bug free, nor fast 
, nor complete)
>    > 
>    > In my experience, static type checking _in a polymorphic type system
>    > with type inference_ makes it easier and faster to get code working;
>    > it doesn't make it harder. As an added bonus, it does help reduce the
>    > frequency of bugs, and  
>    it does help make your code run faster.
>    > 
>    > If you don't have a polymorphic type system with type inference, then
>    > I agree that static type checking is a bother.
> 
>    That is still too rigid.  What you really want is
>    "just-the-right-amount" of type checking that will exactly
>    communicate your desired design constraints to the compiler, while
>    avoiding that odious type-checking rigor mortis. [goes on to
>    talk about Objective-C]
> 
> I think we may have different notions of "polymorphic" here. I'm
> talking about Milner-style polymorphism (as found in SML and a few
> other languages), not OO-style polymorphism.
> 
> OO-style polymorphism is more restrictive than Milner-style
> polymorphism, and also too restrictive for my tastes in the presence
> of a static type checker.

You're correct; I thought you were referring to hierarchical OO polymorphism.

Could you explain what "Milner polymorphism is"?  Is it anything like the Objective-C "protocols" I mentioned, where you can, as part of the compiler's typing system, declare an object to respond to a certain set of messages?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard	<burchard@geom.umn.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.object:3754 comp.lang.smalltalk:1945 comp.lang.eiffel:1177
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: comparing object-oriented platforms
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:34:50 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <23741@alice.att.com> garry@alice.UUCP () writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.024059.25761@actrix.gen.nz> Des.Kenny@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>   

>Then you lay the following crap on me.  My eyes glaze over, and I have
>the same reaction I get to TV "info-mercials" and televangelists.
>I tune out.  Many of the "discussions" of C++ vs. Eiffel I've seen
>in the past showed the same kind of wild-eyed enthusiasm for Eiffel,
>mixed with disdain for the lowly cretins who would debase themselves
>by using C++.  Now, maybe I should be impressed that Eiffel can
>generate that kind of enthusiasm, but zealots scare me, and my first 
>instinct is to stop listening, and to dismiss the technical arguments
>as more of the same.

Agreed. I am afraid I moved into flame mode here as a result of the
response to my opinion that smalltalk is not realistic for use in
business programming. I received everything from comments on my penis
size (being female, I would like to inform those folks that I don't have
one, nor could I care less) to email letter bomb threats.
 
>Quite a few of us, actually.  Although perhaps our level of OO-enlightenment
>is not up to your exalted standards, Oh Blessed One.

Thank you. Languages should be selected for their appropriateness to the
task at hand. Smalltalk is good for rapid prototyping; C++ for production
code. Modula-3 would be good for production code if it were more widespread,
and therefore the talent to use it was available. I don't know about
Eiffel; so I won't comment. 

>   			C++ compilers may be better for
>   			died in the wool C programmers who are scared to
>   			venture to far from the nice little C hole they have
>   			dug theselves.

>Yeah, I just spend all day cringing in my office, uh, hole, praying
>I will never have to learn anything or have an original thought again.
>Pssst.  Don't tell my management.

:-) I always thought that C++ was good for those of us who couldn't talk
management into Modula-3 or Ada. :-)
(Yes, Ada isn't object oriented, but don't tell the government.) 

>			But C++ is a poor compromise at best.
>   			It is not real OO.

>Perhaps by your definition. Many disagree.

OK. Now you've gone and done it. Which has the 'realest' :-) OO?
Smalltalk or C++?

>   			So when you see figure of enormous numbers of C++
>   			licenses. Think what this really means in OO terms
>   			rather that C terms.

>It means that a great many people are reaping the benefits of OOP.

>   			My advice is not to be a sheep. Sheep get slaughtered
>   			in the end. 

Good thinking. I guess we can't pull the wool over your eyes. :-)
   

>Agreed.  That is what the original poster is trying to do.
>If we went by the number of licences, we'd all be using COBOL.

Yep. 
Or RPG.
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk
From: burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu (Paul Burchard)
Subject: Re: comparing object-oriented platforms
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:34:33 GMT

In article <TMB.92Oct3215246@arolla.idiap.ch> tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M.  
Breuel) writes:
> In article <ken8Xe_00awRQ5OHYd@andrew.cmu.edu> osoelgaultier+@CMU.EDU (Stefan Monnier) writes:
> >Static type checking makes it harder to develop code in limited
> >time (prototype doesn't have to be bug free, nor fast, nor complete)
> 
> In my experience, static type checking _in a polymorphic type system
> with type inference_ makes it easier and faster to get code working;
> it doesn't make it harder. As an added bonus, it does help reduce the
> frequency of bugs, and  
it does help make your code run faster.
> 
> If you don't have a polymorphic type system with type inference, then
> I agree that static type checking is a bother.

That is still too rigid.  What you really want is "just-the-right-amount" of type checking that will exactly communicate your desired design constraints to the compiler, while avoiding that odious type-checking rigor mortis.

I think the version of Objective-C that comes with NeXTSTEP 3.0 provides a good example of tuneable, appropriate type checking.  At compile time, you can
	- statically type the object (with type inference of course), or
	- type it with protocols, which embody common api indep of the
		class hierarchy, or
	- leave the type completely opaque as an "id"
If you take the last option and defer to run time, all is not lost as you have further flexibility in type-checking de-escalation: you can
	- test for class membership, or
	- test for class or inherited membership, or
	- test if the object responds specifically to the message
		you are about to send it, independent of its class, or
	- let 'er rip and hope for the best :-)
This graduated type-checking is quite unobtrusive unless you really do something you didn't want to do, and in my experience does not at all interfere with NeXTSTEP's ease of prototyping.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard	<burchard@geom.umn.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky comp.object:3747 comp.lang.smalltalk:1933 comp.lang.eiffel:1172
From: Bob Hathaway <objsys@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: What is (the) time, please?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 06:22:12 GMT
Organization: Object Systems

In article <1992Sep24.104553.22756@jyu.fi> sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:
>>These questions arose from the problem of modelling a driving car. This car 
>>is defined by its location (2-dim.) and its speed (vector). Using some 
>>controls you can change the speed-value (and the direction of course).
>>And then? You go to the kitchen and have a cup of coffee while your car
>>is running a 100 mph without moving (i.e. changing its location). The
>>problem here is that we don't want to introduce timer-objects (<> time-obj.)
>>which tell our car,... when to change. In reality its not the clock in your 
>>car which sends "one-second-has-passed"--messages to your vehicle.
>
>A better alternative than a specific time object for this purpose
>would be to define the car as an active object, i.e., having a thread
>(an activity, a process) within itself.  Unfortunately, there is no such
>capability in most current OOPLs.  Try to use an appropriate language
>if possible, like good old Simula (strictly speaking, it has only
>pseudo-concurrent coroutines, but its standard class SIMULATION
>is expressly designed for discrete simulations.)

A more global clock seems to solve the above problem.  And Ada, of course,
has tasking which is quite easy to work with.  Maybe after Ada-9x it won't
just provide object-based facilities.  There are also concurrent versions of
Smalltalk and other odd-job OO languages with some very nice concurrent
constructs.

bob
objsys@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
From: olm@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Lehrmann Madsen)
Subject: Re: comparing object-oriented platforms
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 19:01:04 GMT

mwu@orion.oac.uci.edu (Matt Wu) writes:


>I'm currently evaluating several object-oriented development platforms
>and I was wondering if any of you would like to share your opinions on
>platforms that you prefer or know about.  It'd be especially useful to hear
>comparisons between different platforms (for instance, Eiffel v. Smalltalk).

>So, for any evangelists out there, this is your chance. All replies will be
>welcome. The hardware platforms that I'm using are principally the Macintosh
>(under system 7), MS Windows 3.1 and NeXT Step 3.0. My most immediate concern,
>though, is to find something for the Mac, so any information regarding that
>platform will be especially appreciated.

	The Mjolner BETA System is available for Macintosh under system 7,
	and with MPW. For information send e-mail to

	mjolner@mjolner.dk

>Thanks,

>Matt
>mwu@orion.oac.uci.edu


Ole Lehrmann Madsen
olmadsen@daimi.aau.dk

Newsgroups: comp.object
From: scottr@atherton.com(Scott F. Rasmussen)
Subject: Looking for language Python
Keywords: interpreter, embeddable, object oriented, python
Organization: Atherton Technology, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:42:50 GMT


I am trying to find out where I can get an object oriented interpreted  
language called Python. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks,

--

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Rasmussen                                    scottr@atherton.com
Atherton Technology                           {sun|decwrl}!athertn.com