Re: OO dot notation

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Ingo Marks wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>For all those who have been arguing that Ada would be much
>>more successful if it allowed the object.method() syntax,
>>it might be interesting to check out some of the goings on
>>in comp.lang.c++.moderated, in the 'Guru of the Week #84'
>>threads. Many of the C++ cognoscenti are coming to the
>>conclusion that the method(object) notation is superior,
>>and indeed that as few functions as possible should be made
>>methods of a class.
> 
> It seems to me that the world isn't "mature" for Ada yet like Unix wasn't 
> mature for the masses years ago until the first affordable powerful PCs 
> came up. Maybe in the future Ada will enjoy a "revival" when people demand 
> more powerful languages and discover the advantages of Ada.

I like this answer. Additionally, people used to cite the
compiler speed and cost. Now with faster CPUs and GNAT being
freely available, both of these objections are now irrelevant
(except maybe for the Alpha (FreeBSD) platform where I cannot
get GNAT bootstrapped for :-( )

Now Ada must wait for the C/C++ world to humble themselves to
the fact that Ada was ahead of its time in most ways ;-)
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg