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,fd96375b28b3103b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: "Classes" as packages in Ada Date: 1998/11/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 416665997 References: <73f0p1$4iu8$1@prime.imagin.net> <1103_911962898@DZOG-CHEN> <3UU62.124$8X3.638914@news.rdc1.az.home.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 912310905 201 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-11-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 25 Nov 1998, Robert I. Eachus wrote: > In article <3UU62.124$8X3.638914@news.rdc1.az.home.com> "John Goodsen" writes: > > > So my conclusion is that Ada code for an interface is not even > > close in simplicity (from the programmer's point of view) as > > something like... > > About all I can say, is you are right, and you are wrong. As Ed > pointed out, most of what requires interfaces in other languages is > done with generic mix-ins in Ada 95. I'd say you were comparing > apples and oranges, but it is more like comparing Waldorf salad and > apples. Well, I think in this case that John is more right than wrong, though I'd add a great big "So !@#$ing what?" to that since any number of things involving generics, enums, range types, etc., etc. are expressed simply in Ada and with a bit more difficulty in Java. OTOH, the interface feature of Java, or the "signature" feature of GNU C++, are IMO appealing candidates for consideration in a future version of Ada. Interfaces, besides capturing the most common use of multiple inheritance, make Norman Cohen's workaround to the "withing problem" (the dummy parent approach) much more acceptable IMO. -- Brian