Re: Fun: Object Pascal on VMS

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 12:19:50 -0000 (UTC)
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:

On 2024-09-06, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

On 9/4/2024 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: 

On 9/3/2024 10:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote: 

On 9/3/2024 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote: 

On 2024-09-03, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote: 

As for VMS and Pascal, there is a very decent implementation of
that language on
VMS, so what's the problem when a product aimed at a different
environment will not run on every environment. 

>
So how capable are the OO features in VMS Pascal these days ? 

>
You state that similar to my comment above, as if it is a given
that OO is necessary.  Perhaps not.  Cheap way to avoid my
question. 

>
If you write OS kernel or an embedded application for a device
counting memory in KB (or maybe a few MB): it is not necessary. 

>
Ok, your word, "necessary".
>
Explain to me why OO is necessary ...
>
Not that it may be useful, or desired.  You wrote "necessary".
 

 
Because the sheer size of the projects involved require the additional
abstraction and encapsulation that OO brings to the table.
 
There is a reason why Ada, a language designed for building extremely
large safety-critical systems, added OO features to its second
iteration and the only debate has been on the syntax, not whether
those OO features were required.
>

1995. And I suppose that the effort started 2-3 year early, exactly at
the peak of OO hype.

It's the exact same reason why no-one builds a OS in assembly language
these days. Technically you "could" do it, but to build something
viable and robust and in a reasonable amount of time, it is
"necessary" to use a higher-level language such as C.
 
Simon.