Re: Subject/Object Confusion Syndrome [was: Ada Objects Help]

[jgv@swl.msd.ray.com (John Volan)]

dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:
>
>In article <3h1ahp$gf5@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>You are indeed confused. Tagged does NOT "express object orientedness". It
>>merely says that the type contains a runtime tag allowing type extension and
>>polymorphism.
>>
>
>Quite right.  Much in the same way that templates in C++ are not
>explicitly limited to "generic" situations, considering that
>templates are frequently used to implement bounded arrays in a manner
>that would make Ada people giggle.

Dave, 

You're clearly making a slam against C++, but it sounds like you're
also making a slam against Ada in the same breath.  Now, I do agree
with you that C++'s approach to arrays is inferior to Ada array types.
Although a C++ Array template might imitate Ada's constraint checks,
such a template would constitute "user-defined" code and would not be
intrinsic to the language.  Consequently, I seriously doubt whether
there are any C++ compilers that are savvy enough to optimize accesses
to an array the way Ada compilers typically do -- *without* breaking
the safety that Ada-like arrays provide.  For instance, are there C++
compilers out there that can *remove* index-constraint checks when
they can be proven unnecessary, yet retain them when they are needed?

On the other hand, are you also implying that Ada95 tagged types are
in some way inferior as a means of implementing object-oriented
designs?  If so, what do you mean?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Me : Person :=
   (Name => "John G. Volan",  E_Mail_Address => "jgv@swl.msd.ray.com",
    Employer => "Raytheon",   Affiliation => "Enthusiastic member of Team-Ada!",
    Favorite_Slogan => "Ada95: The World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL",
    Humorous_Language_Lawyerly_Disclaimer =>
      "These opinions are undefined by my employer, so using them would be "  &
      "totally erroneous ... or would that be a bounded error? :-) ");
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------