Re: Ichibah flames, and flames out over, Ada 9X

[koehnema@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Harry Koehnemann)]

In article <SRCTRAN.93Mar8171548@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>From this point of view, the original posting's
>call for more features in Ada9X that allows better competition with C++
>(and Smalltalk) should be heeded.

All I wanted to know was why type extensions were chosen over the
class construct (which I think Mr. Taft addressed).  I've always had
the question - Do classes or type extensions map better to typical OO
problems?  I've never seen any studys that compared the two.  I figured
that, since the OO additions were perhaps that largest change in a
rather costly revision process, someone might have looked into why
classes were so popular - maybe even done that study I've been looking
for.

Another point is that neither construct is new (despite what I hear on
c.l.a) and classes seem to have "won" in the OO world.  If Ada wants to
play ball in that community, I feel it's got a pretty big sell ahead of
itself - which could probably start with that study comparing classes
and type extensions for some model OO problems.  (kindof like doing the
feasibility study after the products built)

People seem to enjoy finding flaws in Ada.  Will type extensions be
another one of those problem areas people love to point at when talking
about Ada?  ("Type extensions!  We saw type extensions way back in...")
Either way, I think it's a big area of risk for 9X.
--
Harry Koehnemann			Arizona State University
koehnema@enuxha.eas.asu.edu		Computer Science Department