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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: Nick Leaton <nickle@calfp.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C?  (WAS: Re: Avoiding
 the second historic mistake)
Date: 1997/07/10
Message-ID: <33C4AF0E.339D@calfp.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 255924622
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: calfp.demon.co.uk [158.152.70.168] [NO-IDENT]
References: <33957A33.1C31AB44@oma.com> <865898351snz@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
 <339ED54C.215A5F85@oma.com> <5noc8u$a8m$3@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
 <33A032AC.2D8BA85C@oma.com> <5nrn86$cvo$3@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
 <33A1CBBB.B0602EC@oma.com> <5o2uls$ku3$2@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
 <33A6ADDA.2099EEB9@oma.com> <EBxM3y.8Eo@i2.COM> <33A7D2DE.545B@polaroid.com>
 <JSA.97Jun18155730@alexandria.organon.com> <33A9338D.10BB@polaroid.com>
 <harrison-2106970827440001@apm1-87.realtime.net>
 <33B09D64.E7F99DA3@saguarosoft.com> <33B16CBB.417A@gdesystems.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680000207972142310001@news.ni.net>
 <slrn5rn570.j6j.abo@minkirri.apana.org.au>
 <mheaney-ya023680000407970016150001@news.ni.net>
 <slrn5rq1gc.che.abo@minkirri.apana.org.au>
 <JSA.97Jul4200941@alexandria.organon.com>
 <slrn5s0ucv.fpc.abo@minkirri.apana.org.au>
 <mheaney-ya023680000907971936320001@news.ni.net>
Newsgroups: 
 comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Date: 1997-07-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew Heaney wrote:

> Different languages have made different choices with respect to whether all
> types should be part of a common hierarchy.  That Eiffel did so, and Ada
> did not, should not be construed as better, just different.

I'm not sure about this. If you don't have a common hierarchy, then that
precludes you from using a common root. Now this is useful when we look
at container classes. It is particularly useful when you can constrain
the type that is store in a container to a particular type. 

By having a common hierarchy you are not limited from doing anything
that you can without one. However the reverse is not true. Therefore a
common heirarchy is the better solution.

-- 

Nick