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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,aea4cc77526f5e4a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!out03a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr14.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <7xJvj.7420$Ru4.4246@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> <5b9wj.4639$Mh2.1432@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> <5Ekwj.10401$0o7.6822@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> <%Ntwj.12620$Ch6.11402@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Separate Compilation in Programming Languages X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.112.39 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net 1204037802 ST000 70.134.112.39 (Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:56:42 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:56:42 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: TSUGW^WETZSMB_DX]BCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^RR@ETUCCNSKQFCY@TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK@TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG@SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC@VJM Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:56:42 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20090 Date: 2008-02-26T14:56:42+00:00 List-Id: "Stephen Leake" wrote in message news:uprujvnv4.fsf@stephe-leake.org... > writes: > >> The ripple-effect will occur >> since most of a Java design is not based on Interfaces, > > This is a description of a common Java _practice_, not a requirement > of the Java _language_. > > So, as others have said, keeping the interface specification separate > from the implementation is _easier_, and possibly more common, in Ada. > But it is also _possible_ in Java. > But, as Mr. Kennedy notes in a separate contribution to this thread, "Actually, this doesn't accomplish as much as you wish, in practice, as it will eventually be necessary to have a constructor for the real class, or else a static factory method." Until I began this conversation, and after doing additional research, I was unaware of just how bad the situation with Java was. The more I examined this issue, with that additional research, it became clear that Ada's model is even better than I had realized. All the protestations in favor of Java simply fail to square with the reality of Java practice. Richard Riehle > -- > -- Stephe