Re: Ada Annoyances

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

> >So guess how did I learn about it...
> 
> You wrote some ill-advised Initialize routines?

You cannot say it was ill-advised without knowing the context and purpose. More likely, you prefer to refer to some unspoken "principle" to defend the language - it is convenient, because it avoids discussion. But this is not a design principle, it is a language constraint, simply "don't do that in Ada". I understand this. But if I can do it in other languages, then it might as well be a proper design, it just needs a proper language support, which Ada does not provide.

> Re-dispatching is almost 
> always evil, do it only after VERY careful consideration.

Let's say I did consider it VERY carefuly. Now all your references to unspoken "principles" and qualifiers like "almost" and "majority" and criticism of the code that you have never seen, fell apart.

The objective fact is this: the language allows something and it does not offer the complete support for that something. Whether that something is a good design in any particular context is another story. The language has a hole in its type system. It is that simple. I can accept any solution (even the draconian ones that you have mentioned), but not a lack of solution.

> >Yes. C++ got that part right.
> 
> You completely ignored my point about order of initialization,

Because I did not understand how package elaboration relate to constructing objects in the class hierarchy. I have understood that you wanted to show that Ada is cool in some other, unrelated areas.

> I don't think C++ (or any other 
> mainstream language) even tries to get that right...

The order of initialization of objects is very well defined in C++.
Or at least nobody has demonstrated any problem with it in this discussion.
I have, however, demonstrated a problem with the order of initialization in Ada.

-- 
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com