Re: Ada OO Mechanism

[Samuel Mize <smize@imagin.net>]

David Botton <David@Botton.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Trying to write Ada code that conforms to a C++ view of syntax and
>> semantics is as foolish as trying to write C++ code to look like Ada.
> 
> I don't think it is so foolish to write C++ code that looks like Ada
> code.

Well, I meant in both cases "writing code that conforms to the language
X view of syntax and semantics."  For perfect clarity, I should have
repeated the entire phrase in the second parallel clause.  I hope you'll
agree that it would not be good C/C++ coding style to, for instance, use
preprocessor macros to turn "BEGIN" and "END" into "{" and "}" so your
C/C++ code would look more like Ada.  Each language has a "view of
syntax and semantics" that defines it, and you should work within its
own view of itself, not try to force the view of other languages on it.

> IMHO Good C++ code should look very much like Ada. Clear separation
> between specs and body. Clear long object names and variables,
> documentation, etc.

You're saying that good C++ should look very much like GOOD Ada, in
those ways that are language-independent.  But it will still use C++
syntax and semantics.

Best,
Sam Mize

-- 
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam