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: 103376,8b8748382fcfacc1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "John J. Rusnak" Subject: Re: friend classes in ada95 Date: 2000/04/18 Message-ID: <38FD1830.949F5E81@mindspring.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 612957540 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <8dh37m$qef$2@wanadoo.fr> <3B5L4.1317$B43.116109@news.pacbell.net> X-Accept-Language: en X-Server-Date: 19 Apr 2000 02:26:32 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-19T02:26:32+00:00 List-Id: I'd have to weigh in on the opposite side. "Class" and "object" are rather easy terms to grasp. And I can tell you through exeperience that the Ada model has been difficult for many I have seen coming into the language to grasp. (Some with OO backgrounds and some without). But to each their own I suppose. I agree with the comment on "code words", though. -John tmoran@bix.com wrote: > > A tagged type is not a class. A tagged type is a programming construct > When first trying to understand this stuff, I personally found thinking > of a tag on a record etc to be much easier to understand than all the > OO stuff about classes and objects. "class" and "object" are such > vague terms they convey little information. Also they are used for > a variety of *different* things (see mathematics, or MS's use of "class" > in COM). OTOH, if one's intent is to certify membership in an > exclusive club by the use of code words known only to the members, > then "class" is as good as anything.