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,e5eb8ca5dcea2827 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Samuel Mize Subject: Re: Ada OO Mechanism Date: 1999/05/20 Message-ID: <7i1kqj$2o6r@news1.newsguy.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 480232205 References: <7i05aq$rgl$1@news.orbitworld.net> <7i17gj$1u1k@news2.newsguy.com> <37444257.5933869F@Botton.com> Organization: ImagiNet Communications, Ltd. User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-981002 ("Phobia") (UNIX) (AIX/3-2) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-05-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: David Botton 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