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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C? (WAS: Re: Avoiding the second historic mistake) Date: 1997/07/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257115546 References: Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: (C, C++ groups removed...) On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Matthew Heaney wrote: > In article , donh@syd.csa.com.au wrote: > >Yes, through a round-about way using genericity. This is inelegant compared > >with multiple inheritance. However, it's simple compared to the obscure > >technique for acheiving multiple views in Ada95 Rationale, Section 4.6.3. > >I'm still trying to comprehend that one! > > Be careful bandying about terms like "more elegant" and "less pure." Those > are concepts invented by humans to convey an idea to another human. Nature > doesn't care about what is more or less elegant, she only cares about what > works and what doesn't. Most of us got it the first time: Eiffel way good, Ada way bad. I am disgusted with myself for preferring Ada 95 to Eiffel, and I must be warped because I find the self referential structure of the MI in the Rationale 4.6.3 (http://www.adahome.com/LRM/95/Rationale/rat95html/rat95-p2-4.html#6 for those of you who want to see for yourselves) *beautiful*, and worth the small effort invested in comprehension. Interestingly, the creators of BETA also decided to leave out MI as well. But I guess they must be poor designers too. There is only one true OOP way after all, and Don *knows* it. And people who use SML must be the most barbarous of all, since they don't have "objects"! How can they do anything? -- Brian