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

[jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan)]

I must agree with the recent posts that express concern over
Ada 9X's OOP features not be recognized as such.  I'm not an 
'average' programmer (I know Ada, C++, Turbo Pascal, a number 
of Modula-2s with OOP, Oberon-2).  Yet, I had no little difficulty 
reading the Ada 9X rationale and understanding just how 9X will 
support OOP.

I think introducing the keyword 'tagged' is a mistake.  It sure
didn't facilitate my understanding.  It wasn't until I read
the paper by Dismukes and Rome that I realized, 'Oh, this
isn't so different after all.'  My impression (and it may be only
mine) is that 'tagged' is an implementation detail that has
somehow leaked out.  What an ugly word it is (and how many times 
will it be misspelled!--one 'g' or two?).  Ichbiah's suggestion
seems preferable.

There will probably be better sources for learning Ada 9X OOP
features (there probably are now).  But at the time, the rationale was
all I had.  Maybe a book/monograph needs to be written that's palatable
to the pop programming culture, speaking to them at their level, an
'Ada 9X Primer'?!  Until there is, I'm afraid that Ada 9X OOP
will be preceived as something 'unfamiliar'.

--Larry