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: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nabbasi@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages Date: 1998/07/26 Message-ID: <6petet$hff@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 375006623 References: <6pdhfo$1br$1@platane.wanadoo.fr> Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://www.newsguy.com] Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-07-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: offcourse a type is defined as set of values and set of operations. I find it very hard in Ada to visualize an tagged object. but I can easily visulaize a class object in Java or C++ becuase the class construct makes it easy for me to do that. when I used Ada, I use it as an object-based (as opposed to object-oriented) langauge, which is what Ada was originally designed as, I do not use Ada for its OO features. I like Ada as a procedural/object based, and for that it is great. plus I think all the OO/inhertence stuff is way overrated any way. abstraction, data hiding, sepration of interfaces and implementaions, strong typing, generics, good exception, good build-in tasking model, and all that good stuff is good enough for me. If I want to do heavy/pure OO stuff, I would not use Ada, just becuase I am not used to the OO ways of Ada, it just too different from all the other OO languages out there (different in how its OO features are reprsented offcourse, the semactics are the same, but language representation (lexical structure) is very important I think becuase it affect how one thinks and visualize things), and in that the class structure is more natural than tagged records + procedures that takes paramters or returns paramters of types of that record. my 2 cents. Nasser