Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?
From: Cristiano Sadun (cristianoTAKEsadun_at_THIShotmailOUT.com)
Date: 08/16/04
- Next message: Cristiano Sadun: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management"
- Previous message: Dmitry A. Kazakov: "Re: LSP violation or not"
- In reply to: H. S. Lahman: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Next in thread: Dmitry A. Kazakov: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Reply: Dmitry A. Kazakov: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 16 Aug 2004 08:04:09 GMT
"H. S. Lahman" <h.lahman@verizon.net> wrote in
news:Dl8Tc.118$iE3.43@trndny09:
> I don't know Occam at all and I am only passingly familiar with Java.
> But as I recall there are are specific language constructs for things
> like threads. I would argue that qualifies as 3.nGL. Because all
> OOPLs provide abstractions beyond procedures and block structures,
> they are all 3.nGLs where n -> 0. OTOH, if a language has explicit
> abstractions for concurrency, IMO that would bring n closer to being
> 4GL. So my specification of "general purpose 3GL" may have been a bit
> too facile.
Ok, all's clear now. Incidentally, Occam allows to specify different
processes (it was the language for Inmos' transputers in the 80s or 90s, I
dont recall anymore). Insofar I know, Java was the first one to incorporate
threading directly at language level (instead of using an o/s level
service), with a Thread class and synchronization primitives but I might be
wrong here. Ada also does tasks, and has a "rendezvous" concept - but in
Ada we should be talking about processes, not threads (but again I am not a
Ada expert, so I might be corrected).
>
> <aside>
> In addition, if the representation includes concurrency and/or
> asynchronous processing as a fundamental part of its execution model,
> I would be tempted to regard that as a true 4GL.
Might be. Actually the Nth generation thing is a bit blurred (at least on
the web) - I did a quick search and found different definitions. For
example, the ones found in the wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-generation_programming_language
are copied by lots of resources but there are many (as
http://searchsmallbizit.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid44
_gci211502,00.html) which do include Java.
Indeed, it's just a matter of agreeing on the definition.
> Translation quality
> OOA models have UML profiles that fully incorporate asynchronous
> execution semantics; one can't even express synchronous behavior
> invocation. But they don't include a concurrent execution semantics
> because concurrency is a response to nonfunctional requirements (OOD).
> So it is tough to argue such models are beyond, say, 3.8GL. B-))
> </aside>
> I also suspect that
> the majority of Java developers do not use the concurrent facilities
> nor even employ an asynchronous mindset to the software construction.
I sincerely hope you're wrong here, but judging from lots of Java questions
which I hear around (and the associated code), I fear you're not. :)
> I probably should have said, "... today there in nowhere to
> execute...".
> B-) While different computational models may someday be implemented
> in the hardware, I wouldn't hold my breath. That's because Turing/von
> Neumann machines have the virtues of both simplicity and generality
> that form a very good base for mechanical computation. So, as a
> practical matter, I don't see any paradigm shifts in the offing.
Agreed. :)
> [As a corollary, nobody has figured out how to optimize multiprocessor
> code yet using the very simple T/VN model, so I think it would require
> substantial hubris for anyone to seriously propose making the hardware
> model more complicated. B-) Of course, if one came up with an even
> simpler model...]
I wouldn't have a clue, so I take your word. :)
Agreed on all the rest.
- Next message: Cristiano Sadun: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management"
- Previous message: Dmitry A. Kazakov: "Re: LSP violation or not"
- In reply to: H. S. Lahman: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Next in thread: Dmitry A. Kazakov: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Reply: Dmitry A. Kazakov: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
