Was also favored by the US military from what I was told at the time.
That's correct. The name was trademarked IIRC, and every Ada compiler had to pass a comprehensive series of tests (ACATS). (They still do.) The DoD required Ada to be used in all new contracts.
I worked for a while with the JCK, the Java compliance tests... every Java compilers must pass them to be called "Java"...
Of course, these tests do not prevent the use of null references and such
(And, actually, they (used to?) include plenty of "special cases" because the "baseline implementation" is wrong (either the Sun/Oracle Java compiler or JVM) but it becomes the "standard" to be compatible...)
I took an ADA class in college around 91-92.... It seemed exactly as I described...and it was object-based, not fully object oriented.
What do you mean by "object-based"? Ada 83 had something called derived types, but that's a method to build subtypes, not to facilitate object-oriented program with inheritance and the like.
Exactly. Objects are just fancy 'types' with properties and methods. So that's why it is labelled object-base and not object-oriented. Old-school Visual Basic was also considered object-based and not fully object-oriented...though it does support interfaces.
Now - VB.net - is god's gift to programmers and curse Microsoft for abandoning it!
6 crawler(s) on-line.
117 guest(s) on-line.
0 member(s) on-line.
tygre 
