Re: ada vs. cpp

[James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

Pi wrote:
> 
> 
> IIRC you have to specify the headers (but *only* the headers)
> of all method that you want to use polymorph *directly* after
> the declaration of the tagged type.
> 
> And this is poorly documented and the compiler warnings are of
> no much help either.

Poor compiler messages? That is not my experience.
Of course, messages are not part of the language definition.
Each compiler develops its own set of error and warning messages.

The Aonix compiler generates very useful messages, ususally with
references to the corresponding section of the language reference
manual. The GNAT compiler generates truly brilliant error messages.
For instance, if you mistype the keyword "while" it will tell you
"Line XX col YY : Keyword while misspelled", where XX is the line
number and YY is the column number of the beginning of the
detected error.

> 
> He asked if he should port his project from cpp to Ada.
> What do I know if he uses MI?

He may use MI. That is not impossible to convert to Ada.

> if you want an enumeration type you shouldn't use Java.
> An enumeration type is not an OO-Concept and therefor isn't included.
> 
> Beside, as you have to write it yourself you can also
> make it more powerful. (Enumeration of objects?)
> 
> But, I admit, I missed enumerations in Java ...

Integers are not an OO-concept, but they are included in Java.

Sets can be nicely expressed as an OO-concept, but they are not
included in Java.

My point is that Java's design strongly encourages the use of OO
concepts, but neither requires them, nor does it provide a
completely inclusive definition of OO tools and concepts.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA