Re: A bad counterintuitive behaviour of Ada about OO

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:55:19 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Le 08/08/2014 10:04, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>> I thought you argued that classifications were non-existent. So it is
>> against generic programming? That would include generics.
> 
> No, but I do argue that the fact that classifications exists in other
> disciplines does not necessarily imply that it is appropriate for
> software development, and especially that it is appropriate to all
> software development.

How mathematics may not apply to the elementary types like Integer?

> And no, I do not consider generic programming as a classification. I
> would argue that it is the opposite of classification: it allows you to
> develop algorithms that can be applied to types that have some features,
> without requiring that these types have a common "is-a" relationship.

That does not make sense. "is-a" actually means nothing but "is a thing
with some features."

Do you propose not to formalize "some features"? This is not how Ada
generics work anyway. "Some features" are formalized in Ada through formal
generic parameters. The only difference to classes is that classes do that
through types, while generics do in an untyped manner.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de