Subject: [vwrap] What does "ADT" mean?

From: Boroondas Gupte <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 22:29:31 +0200

Sorry to come up here with a 'language' issue, but this has confused me
a bit. (Maybe because I'm not a native speaker of English.)

The abbreviation "ADT" has been used on this list a lot recently. (I
think mainly by Morgaine.) To me, it seems like in most of the uses here
on the list, it has to have the meaning "abstract type system" to make
any sense. Though, the only related expansion of the abbreviation I can
find is "abstract data type", which isn't a synonym of "abstract type
system", as far as I can tell. (If I've understood correctly, an
abstract type system is composed from abstract data types and conversion
rules between them.)

If the use of "ADT" to mean "abstract type system" was just a mistake
that got carried on for a short time, I suggest to cease using it in
that meaning to avoid confusion and use the abbreviation only when you
actually mean "abstract data type". Either write out "abstract type
system" fully when you intend that meaning, or use a different
abbreviation - maybe "ATS" or "ADTS" (for "abstract data type system").

Cheers,
Boroondas

---

From: Dzonatas Sol <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 14:47:01 -0700

+1

On 05/07/2011 01:29 PM, Boroondas Gupte wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>    

-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 02:47:31 +0100

ADT means Abstract Data Type.

A system of abstract data types (such as LLSD) has no accepted name or
abbreviation, but commonly one says "ADT system", or where context allows an
unambiguous interpretation, simply "ADT".

No mystery there, it has been so for decades of common usage in Computing.
:-)

Morgaine.

=======================

---

From: Boroondas Gupte <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:59:48 +0200

Thanks for the clarification.

> ADT means Abstract Data Type.
Ah, as I suspected. :-)

> abbreviation, but commonly one says "ADT system",
Well, Meadhbh (and others behind LLSD?) seem to have coined the term
"abstract type system" for such systems, but "ADT system" is equally
understandable now that "ADT" is understood, so we can use those two
terms synonymous, I guess.

> or where context allows an unambiguous interpretation, simply "ADT".
>
> No mystery there, it has been so for decades of common usage in
> Computing. :-)
The whole mystery was that I just wasn't aware that it was common to
just say "ADT" instead of "ADT system" or "abstract type system", when
it is clear that a system is meant rather than a single type.

Cheers,
Boroondas

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:49:25 +0100

We can coin our own abbreviations too. :-)

Since "abstract types system" is precise and unambiguous, would you like us
to use "ATS" as a shorthand for this, an even less verbose way of saying
"ADT system"?  It's fine by me. :-)

It would also lead naturally to VWRAP's ATS being known as VWRAP-ATS, which
makes sense.

Morgaine.

=====================

---

From: Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 06:53:18 -0700

hmm... don't think me or mark lentczner coined the term "abstract type
system." i was used by the OMG and Microsoft long before we used it.
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [email-masked]

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:58:56 +0100

Aye, that phrase has been in use for as long as types systems have existed.

Morgaine.

======================

---

From: Dzonatas Sol <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 07:41:36 -0700

Maybe as synonymous as the words "standard" and "innovation".

--

---

From: Dzonatas Sol <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 07:40:18 -0700

It's derived from Abstract Oriented Design. I published a paper on such 
to USENET in the '90s, so this isn't anything new to me. The paper 
merely pinpointed the need for real object oriented design to be active 
before abstract oriented design can be achieved. That's said passive 
because the main point is the flat model most people think is object 
oriented design is not sufficient for true OOP.

AOD is something even JavaVM couldn't achieve while limited to its flat 
text orientation model for program design. JVM added some hooks into the 
language to simulate such, yet even that attempt proved JavaVM wasn't so 
original and based upon many ideas they never credited nor implemented 
first (which finally forced Sun to open source).

On 05/09/2011 06:58 AM, Morgaine wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>
>
>
>
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     wrote:
>     > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

--

---

From: Boroondas Gupte <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 22:10:21 +0200

On 05/09/2011 03:49 PM, Morgaine wrote:
> Since "abstract types system" is precise and unambiguous, would you
> like us to use "ATS" as a shorthand for this, an even less verbose way
> of saying "ADT system"?  It's fine by me. :-)
I just googled around and "ATS" collides with the name of a programming
language <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS_%28programming_language%29>
(and a lot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATS> of completely unrelated
stuff, off course), but that is unlikely to cause confusion, so it's
fine with me, too.

> It would also lead naturally to VWRAP's ATS being known as VWRAP-ATS,
> which makes sense.
Yep.

Cheers,
Boroondas