From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid
Date: 1998/11/25
Date: 1998-11-25T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811250913340.8596-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 01be184b$6c7cbac0$7a36e5c0@pearl
On 25 Nov 1998, partha sarathi panda wrote:
> can anyone convince me on why the Ada object-oriented model does even
> compare with the tight c++ one?
"Stupid" and "tight" are vague. If you ever master English well enough to
formulate the question precisely, someone may be able to give you a real
answer. The best I can do, given the brevity of this troll, is to mention
that Ada 95 does not combine the role of package/module into that of type
to create a "class", as does C++ (which now has namespaces; so much for
"tight"!), and does not tie the notion of OO dispatch to pointer
semantics.
-- Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-11-25 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <01be184b$6c7cbac0$7a36e5c0@pearl>
1998-11-25 0:00 ` the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid Pat Rogers
1998-11-27 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1998-11-27 0:00 ` Dr Amirez
1998-11-25 0:00 ` dennison
1998-11-25 0:00 ` Michael Stark
1998-11-25 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff [this message]
1998-11-25 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle
1998-11-26 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1998-11-27 0:00 ` Jim Easterbrook
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox