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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,911abff935bc47c X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,63a41ccea0fc803a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Naming of Tagged Types and Associated Packages Date: 1998/08/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 380256298 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev7 References: Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1998-08-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Brian Rogoff wrote (in comp.lang.ada): :The truth is I don't think I'll use Eiffel again, because I don't think :its a very good language design. I think OO is overrated, and languages :that try to enforce OO as the *only* programming tool are not for me. You do realise, of course, that you can use Eiffel in a non-OO way if you so choose (no inheritance, polymorphism; use selective export to co-encapsulate abstractions etc.) but it would be a bit like using the nail file of a Swiss Army knife for cutting, opening tin cans etc. when those respective attachments are also available. :I like Eiffel's assertion mechanisms (though I'm not sure they belong in the :language or would be better left as a tool) but I think its type system is :hopelessly broken, it *requires* whole-program analysis due to covariance; :bye-bye separate compilation! I've yet to come across a serious Eiffel user who bemoans the fact that system validity is currently a runtime phenomenon. Those complaining invariably aren't Eiffel users. Don. Don Harrison donh at syd.csa.com.au