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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Real OO (was Choice of OO primitives in Ada95)
Date: 1996/02/23
Message-ID: <Dn95o4.KnG@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 140855946
references: <199602221711.SAA18350@email.enst.fr>
 <4git9e$cqi@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-02-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4git9e$cqi@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>,
Matt Kennel <kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov> wrote:
>Um maaaaybe, but 'once functions' do what they do with no fuss and with
>very clear semantics, without having to define an "elaboration" notion for
>packages. 
>
>I'm not sure that's a "kludge" compared to the complexity of package
>initialization in Ada. 

I'd say both mechanisms leave something to be desired.

>I think it *is* quite fair to say that Eiffel is more object-oriented---ok
>more oriented-around-objects than Ada 95: it's the idee' fixe for Eiffel. 

Yes, of course Eiffel is more object oriented than Ada.  (Not sure why
you add "-around-objects".)  This is because Ada has many features that
are not object-oriented at all.  There's no support, for example, for
polymorphic operations on tasks or arrays.  But this has nothing to do
with the package-vs-class issue.  The features of Ada that *do* support
OOP are just as OOP as anything else.

>This doesn't prove 'prima facie' superiority, though I tend to like
>Eiffel better.  (I've never been convinced about kludges to handle the 
>'multiple withing' problem).

What is the "multiple withing" problem?

- Bob