Re: OOD in Ada?

["Daniel Dudley" <dudley@online.no>]

"Marin David Condic" wrote in message
news:afaear$84m$1@nh.pace.co.uk...
> If you start changing Ada to have "class" constructs and
> object->method syntax and so on to make the Java/C++
> programmers comfortable, you're just migrating Ada into
> becoming Java/C++ rather than being what it is. Assuming
> you could get there at all, you'd end up having to change
> so many paradigms and assumptions within the language,
> that it would either get broken badly or just start being
> C++/Java only with some slight variations. Once you do
> that, why bother with Ada at all? Why not just go use
> Java/C++?
>
> It doesn't seem like it is worth it to start changing
> syntax and structures that will be non-orthogonal with
> the rest of Ada & make existing programs either broke or
> unrecognizable or confusing (New-Ada syntax or Old-Ada
> syntax?). To upset the installed base of users and the
> installed base of code by that much, you'd have to really
> believe there is some huge benefit to be had. So far,
> there is no evidence that anything is that badly broke or
> that changing anything is going to win thousands of new
> converts. If Ada is sinking, its just re-aranging the deck
> chairs on the Titanic. If Ada is growing, eventually the
> converts will get used to what is already there. Its not
> as if these superficial things are *preventing* anyone
> from accomplishing some important goal. A (possibly "ugly"
> in the eyes of some beholders) solution does exist.

Just occasionally, someone publicly displays an incredible
amount of common sense. MDC has done so here. Thank you.

I am competent in a number of imperative, declarative and
pure O-O programming languages. Ada is not one of them, but
I am now making an effort to change that status flag.

Learning a new programming language involves understanding
its syntax, keywords and constructs (in the broadest sense),
and using these as building blocks to achieve a predefined
goal, eg. an efficient, reasonably fast and useful program
in a specific domain. The learning process also involves
understanding the language's limitations, such that one may
program efficiently with an eye to reducing the overall cost
of program development and maintenance. It costs a lot in
terms of time and money (not to mention blood, sweat and
tears) to become a competent programmer -- in any language.
Fundamental changes to language syntax and/or constructs
will only result in an increase in learning complexity and
costs, consequently they are counter-productive -- as are
'language wars'. This is not to say that a programming
language shouldn't evolve, as indeed Ada has from 83 to 95.

Ada is... well, Ada. If you don't like it, don't use it.
It's as simple as that. Now can I safely get down to the
business of learning it, without unnecessary complications?

Daniel