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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.65.202 with SMTP id z10mr2869341pas.45.1407484129124; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:48:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.29.5 with SMTP id a5mr299qga.20.1407484129064; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!h18no16016811igc.0!news-out.google.com!j6ni34691qas.0!nntp.google.com!v10no5369262qac.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 00:48:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.182.34.254; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.182.34.254 References: <932kntuq5rrr.8sumwibqrufn.dlg@40tude.net> <1ohy7vnbntskq$.h139ov04mlxu$.dlg@40tude.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1a329b5c-49d6-419d-91a2-ebeebc2d9b3e@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: A bad counterintuitive behaviour of Ada about OO From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 07:48:49 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21530 Date: 2014-08-08T00:48:48-07:00 List-Id: W dniu czwartek, 7 sierpnia 2014 10:58:20 UTC+2 u=C5=BCytkownik J-P. Rosen = napisa=C5=82: > Rather say that there are two kinds of OO programming languages: those > that consider OOP as one tool among others, to be used when (and only > when) appropriate, and the "pure" OO languages where OOP is the only way > to do everything. Yes. But this division is completely orthogonal to whether the OOP support = is consistent or broken. That is, taking into account these two aspects we = have not two, but four kinds of programming languages and Ada belongs to th= e category of "broken support for OOP as one tool among others". In practice, these divisions are not strict and different languages can be = placed in a continuous space and compared relative to each other. For examp= le, C++ also considers OOP as just one tool among others, but supports it i= n a more consistent way than Ada. > Ada clearly belongs to the first category. Yes. As many other languages. > Of course, there are similarly two kinds of programmers. Yes. > You belong to > the second category I did not write anything that would allow you to make such claims. In fact,= I find myself using OOP very rarely in my current projects - but when I do= it I expect consistent support. Just as an example - one of my current projects (in C++) has 15k lines of c= ode, there are only 60 lines containing the "virtual" keyword (this indicat= es dispatching operation) and I use it consistently not only in base classe= s, but in derived too, so in total there are only a few dispatching operati= ons in the whole project. So, no, I am definitely not an OOP extremist. > but some of us belong to > the first one. And you are OK with broken support for the tool that you are using occasion= ally? This is dangerous as it allows to justify broken support for every ot= her language feature - after all, every one is just "one tool among others"= . Ada should do better than that. --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com