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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-26 14:46:58 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F74B3BE.3000906@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? References: <3F74366B.7050303@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:46:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.24.7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1064612808 209.165.24.7 (Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:46:48 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:46:48 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:43028 Date: 2003-09-26T21:46:48+00:00 List-Id: And a bit more to the original point: How does this stop anyone from realizing a truly OO Implementation of a given OO Design? I *did* observe that the syntax may not be exactly what one may want - but that a solution does exist, so its hard to say "Ada isn't OO enough". It isn't Eiffel or Smalltalk or Java, so the syntax won't necessarily be in perfect alignment with someone's concepts of what makes something "look OO", but if you want inheritance, polymorphism, information hiding, and all the other "classic OO" qualities, it seems like you can get them in Ada. I often hear critics of Ada complaining about this or that, and usually it comes down to "Ada isn't C++, so Ada sucks..." Well, it isn't C++ and it never will be. Its Ada. Its always going to look like Ada and if it takes looking like C++ in order to be considered Stuff That's Cool, then I guess Ada is now and forever shall be Stuff That Sucks. I'd hope we could now get over it and just learn how to use the features it *does* have to do OO Programming and maybe try to discover if there are some featrues it *must* have in order to implement an OO Design. MDC Stephen Leake wrote: > > > The way you get "protected" members in Ada is to use child packages. > Why don't you like child packages? > > Imagine if I said about C++ : "I want protected members, without using > the 'protected' keyword". Would you consider that a valid critique? I > don't think so. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ======================================================================