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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.99.176.75 with SMTP id z11mr2293306pgo.1.1498548230732; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:23:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.46.21 with SMTP id q21mr78869otb.11.1498548230676; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!x12no128360itb.0!news-out.google.com!k7ni1076itk.0!nntp.google.com!185no1602473itv.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:23:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=165.225.16.200; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.225.16.200 References: <1ac5a44b-4423-443a-a7bb-2864d9abe78f@googlegroups.com> <1498048151.20885.28.camel@obry.net> <96174ea5-852d-44e9-8535-7c1eb24d5326@googlegroups.com> <8d3aff06-82df-485f-89e5-a50c326aab05@googlegroups.com> <66aa262e-2ac9-4016-b32d-e9fee14779e1@googlegroups.com> <88e2f18a-0786-4303-a5b8-fe82e8c81dcb@googlegroups.com> <71c4fdcd-4213-4b84-b852-c8674cfaf717@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <98197f40-9833-4bb8-87ca-1593d2da7c81@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada Annoyances From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 07:23:50 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:47138 Date: 2017-06-27T00:23:50-07:00 List-Id: > >So guess how did I learn about it... >=20 > 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 mig= ht as well be a proper design, it just needs a proper language support, whi= ch Ada does not provide. > Re-dispatching is almost=20 > always evil, do it only after VERY careful consideration. Let's say I did consider it VERY carefuly. Now all your references to unspo= ken "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 o= ffer the complete support for that something. Whether that something is a g= ood design in any particular context is another story. The language has a h= ole 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. >=20 > 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=20 > 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. --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com