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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.213.166 with SMTP id nt6mr51146915obc.3.1435082722042; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:05:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.50.136 with SMTP id c8mr277348obo.10.1435082721989; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Path: buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!h15no7543290igd.0!news-out.google.com!kd3ni15320igb.0!nntp.google.com!h15no7543288igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:05:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2602:306:3784:5b10:4022:caf4:bcf9:fef5; posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU NNTP-Posting-Host: 2602:306:3784:5b10:4022:caf4:bcf9:fef5 References: <4lrj5zz2u2z.u8x9cf7xzic6.dlg@40tude.net> <58f64fa9-7d0b-44dd-870c-77d9afcb82c4@googlegroups.com> <20cb0651-27ba-40c7-9f14-8d7a03390649@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <21a6fd6f-a58f-4d8e-b15b-0bf90fc9cc27@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada design bug or GNAT bug? From: David Botton Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:05:22 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:193745 Date: 2015-06-23T11:05:21-07:00 List-Id: > No we don't. There will always be those that disagree and even I am not convinced that a= "class type" per se is the right change today, just what was implemented w= as less than ideal and the result, is Ichbiah foresaw, cost the language in= terms of traction when timing was critical. So a rethink does not per se mean an embrace of former discarded decisions = either, it means a fresh look. In today's market OOP matters far less and i= ts hype vs. value is now balanced. >The approach taken by Ada, like that taken by some=20 former Scheme, is pragma Profile ;-)=20 Agreed and those wanting backward compatibility can always have it in those= packages needed. Perhaps a simplification may even make implementing new front ends more rea= sonable an effort to leverage new tech GCC is not reaching and not likely t= o reach ever. David Botton