Re: Limitations of Ada

[fraser@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)]

kmajor@jagor.srce.hr (Kazimir Majorinc) writes:

>This are limitations of Ada:

As Douglas Adams would say, this is obviously some new use of the
word "limitation" that I haven't been previously aware of. :-)

>1) Not 100 % OO, see Smalltalk

That's good, because OO isn't appropriate for everything.

>2) Without distributed objects, see Modula-3

Depending on your definition of distributed objects, Annexe E is
probably what you're looking for.

>3) Lack of MACROS, see C++

Lack of macros is known as a Good Thing.

>4) Small number of operators to overload, see  C++

Also known as a Good Thing.

>5) Lack of multiple inheritance, see C++

Does this mean that multiple inheritance in C++ is the One True Way?
There's different ways of doing MI, and it's not clear which flavour
is best.  Under such conditions, it seems that leaving it out of the
standard was a good decision.

>6) Big language, see BASIC

So is C++.  In fact, the C++ standard is bigger than the Ada standard.
However, Ada is very good at letting you take only the bits you need.

>But, I love her more than C++ although I did wrote only 'hello world'
>in Ada. 

It's a good start.  And she is fabulous :-)

Fraser.
--
    ____ Fraser Wilson          | email: fraser@cs.mu.oz.au     __o
    \  / The more I learn of    | voice: +61 3 9287 9193      _-\<,_
     \/  C++, the more I like   | fax:   +61 3 9348 1184     (_)/ (_)
           --- Ada 95 ---       | www:   http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fraser/