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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,75a8a3664688f227
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-12 04:56:43 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: dmitry6243@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Parameter Modes, In In Out and Out
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:35:50 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Message-ID: <93mtn6$6t6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <Zmt56.57012$ca6.937797@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
 <7Cx56.90736$A06.3322588@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>
 <937jab$s23$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A57CD7F.2228BFD5@brighton.ac.uk>
 <938p3u$omv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93cagm$c1j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93e4e6$ucg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93l8hm$rlp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.197.149.215
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 12 12:35:50 2001 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x65.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 212.197.149.215
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDdmitry6243
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3947
Date: 2001-01-12T12:35:50+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <93l8hm$rlp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  mark_lundquist@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <93e4e6$ucg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > It is NOT "using all advantages of [a] concept" to insist that
> > it be used absolutely everywhere. On the contrary, that kind of
> > approach leads to a much more restrictive and less useful
> > expressive power.
>
> Very true.
>
> My favorite example is the notion of "purity" of OO languages, which
> holds that some good comes from the ability to say "everything is a
> class".  The only result is that you have to contort everything into
> _being_ a class for the sake of being able to say this, so for
> instance you have to have a "singleton" design pattern to work around
> not having packages with state, etc.

Actually there are two different concepts here. One is that all
language things are objects. Which is absurd because the word "all"
makes the term object useless. Another is that all types are derived
from the common ancestor. It is not so bad, but depends on what is
meant under "derived". The languages you mention "derive" all by the
way that has the described above effects. What is worse, is that they
are unsafe and inefficient. So a purely defined inheritance could be
a problem. Shall we trow it out then?

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/