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: 103376,e5eb8ca5dcea2827
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: David Botton <David@Botton.com>
Subject: Re: Ada OO Mechanism
Date: 1999/05/20
Message-ID: <37444257.5933869F@Botton.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 480193340
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7i05aq$rgl$1@news.orbitworld.net> <7i17gj$1u1k@news2.newsguy.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gate.net
X-Trace: news.gate.net 927220313 71998 199.227.35.85 (20 May 1999 17:11:53
 GMT)
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 May 1999 17:11:53 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-20T17:11:53+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> 
> Trying to write Ada code that conforms to a C++ view of syntax and
> semantics is as foolish as trying to write C++ code to look like Ada.

I don't think it is so foolish to write C++ code that looks like Ada
code.

IMHO Good C++ code should look very much like Ada. Clear separation
between specs and body. Clear long object names and variables,
documentation, etc.

In fact even C++ standards have been working hard to add more Ada in to
C++, for example packages (name spaces)

David Botton

Writing ADA for Ada is like C PLUS PLUS for C++.