From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e384729507492509 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-01 02:29:54 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!epflnews!dinews.epfl.ch!di.epfl.ch!Robb.Nebbe From: Robb.Nebbe@di.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada in Australia (was Ada ad in Embedded Systems Programming stinks) Date: 1 Nov 1994 09:45:36 GMT Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Sender: nebbe@lglsun3.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) Distribution: world Message-ID: <1994Nov1.103410@di.epfl.ch> References: <9410131051.AA29342@eurocontrol.de> <38neq3$9dg@f111.iassf.easams.com.au> <38us16$c0e@godzilla.zeta.org.au> <38v140$sdu@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: lglsun3.epfl.ch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: 1994-11-01T09:45:36+00:00 List-Id: In article <38v140$sdu@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>, cperrott@krakatoa.mqcs.mq.oz.au (Chris Perrott) writes: |> Are the visibility structures of Ada 83 really any better than those of C++? |> Doesn't Ada 83 suffer from the lack of a structure larger than a package, |> something like the new C++ namespace? Actually since Ada's packages aren't coupled with types it is a much more flexible encapsulation mechanism than classes in C++. In Ada 83 you could put anything you wanted in a package including other packages so it is certainly large enough. (Child packages are a better solution IMHO). Namespaces in C++ are being added to patch up a known defficiency in the language and make it easier to reuse software. Fortunately Ada 83 already had a very workable solution to namespace management. - Robb Nebbe