Re: A question for my personal knowledge.

[David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org>]

Mike wrote:
> In Ada, you still use function calls and pass tagged records as
> parameters.
> 
> in real OO, you invoke methods on objects.

Only syntatic sugar. Pretty synatic sugar, but synatic sugar. Before I
got used to it, I was planning on writing a preprocessor to change
Object.Method(...) to Method(Object, ...). 

> Also, a class is more clear representation of an object. in Ada, bolting
> OO concepts into a procedural language, makes the way to do OO in Ada
> not very natural at all.
Actually, no. They introduced OO into Ada in an extraordinarly Ada way.
It fits very naturally into Ada; it doesn't feel bolted on. 

Anyway, why is a class a more clear representation of an object? A class
forces A.atan2(B) (for atan B/A) when there is no reason to put emphasis
on A, where atan2(A, B) would be more natural. 

> sorry, but OO in Ada is not normal OO. I am happy that you have no problem
> with it, but 99% of the rest of the world do not do OO that way Ada does it.
Who cares? Just following the rest of the world is a bad reason for
doing anything.