Re: on package naming, should the word

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

I would seriously doubt that Ada's relative lack of popularity is due to its
lack of some particular OO syntax notation. I would also doubt that a change
of its syntax would suddenly result in lots of OO programmers coming into
the fold. Lots more has to be going into "popularity" than just the syntax.

Consider that any syntax change - no matter how slight - can throw a monkey
wrench into truckloads of existing systems and cost existing users bundles
of money to fix. One doesn't do that on a whim. Just adding a new reserved
word puts every system into the "at risk" category. You can't expect to
change something as fundamental to existing ada as the Method (Object)
notation into Object.Method notation and not have that stir up the pot to
the point where existing users are hurt severely. If a syntax change is in
order, it would only likely happen if someone can show that the existing
syntax is seriously "broke".

Since a solution does exist - just not the same one as is seen in C++/Java -
and that solution is not humungously painful, it doesn't seem warranted to
change the syntax. However, if you could come up with a petition from a
really large number of Java users who promise under penalty of law to switch
languages if only Ada will give them Object.Method, you might have a case
:-)

In the mean time, I'd suggest building a preprocessor that lets you write it
whatever way you like. I believe GNAT supports the ability to invoke a
preprocessor of the user's choice. Put it out where all the Java/C++ users
can see it and see if any jump on the bandwagon. That's an easy way to
experiment with Ada syntax & see how popular the changes may be.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Robert*@" <Robert_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9q4d850163k@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> that is where you are wrong.
>
> the class construct is the basic construct in OO as commonly used. Ada
> does not have it. It is that simple. Ada does do OO, but not using the
> common OO notation.
>
> You can argue for years which is the better notation, but the fact remains
> that the Java/C++ notation for OO is the common and the popular one and
the
> one most programmer are used to,  not the Ada notation.
>
> of course, Ada does not have to change, and Ada will remain not popular.
>
> If this is Ok with the Ada community, it is Ok with me. I have nothing at
> all to gain by Ada becomming more popular or less popular, I am only
> giving you my opinion of what will make Ada more popular and make it more
> used.
>
>
>