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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7eaf9f2597de2259 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-11 09:26:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:15:54 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9q4gjt$qsn$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9q25ec0248o@drn.newsguy.com> <9q421v0bbg@drn.newsguy.com> <9q4d850163k@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1002816957 27543 136.170.200.133 (11 Oct 2001 16:15:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Oct 2001 16:15:57 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14291 Date: 2001-10-11T16:15:57+00:00 List-Id: 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*@" 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. > > >