Jan Atle Ramsli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The problem is that someone just popped out and said "The ADT is not > longer relevant, it died 10 years ago".
That's not what I said. You are getting really annoying; it's as if you *want* to misunderstand. > That is: I have been told that some problems can not be solved with the > concept of an ADT. > I need to know: What are they. It takes only one example to convince me. Geez, an elementary programming text might help. Two classic examples: First failure mode: ADT specifications do not include information on time complexity or expected uses. Consider for example an X 11 "window" as an ADT. Now, what would you say if a spreadsheet design started off with "ok, create 1,000,000 windows, one for each cell, and we can just use X to manage display and positioning". Whoops! Second failure mode: It's not possible in a strict ADT style to have objects which live on several efficiently managed data structures at once. Thomas _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
