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: 103376,95eaa0c908f1c040 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: the Ada object oriented-approach is stupid Date: 1998/11/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 415616148 References: <01be184b$6c7cbac0$7a36e5c0@pearl> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 912014683 12762 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-11-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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