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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,96ed71365ee11846 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (Brian Rogoff) Subject: Re: Limitations of Ada Date: 1996/07/30 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 173088597 distribution: world references: <96072915521064@psavax.pwfl.com> <4tlpfa$cr9@bagan.srce.hr> organization: /u/rogoff/.organization reply-to: rogoff@sccm.stanford.edu newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: kmajor@jagor.srce.hr (Kazimir Majorinc) writes: Hello everybody! Hi! This are limitations of Ada: 1) Not 100 % OO, see Smalltalk Not a limitation. Ada allows you to write code at a lower level than Smalltalk. I see this as a feature, Ada 95 is a multiparadigm language. 2) Without distributed objects, see Modula-3 A distributed object system could be written in Ada. See also the Distributed Systems Annex of Ada 95. 3) Lack of MACROS, see C++ I'm sympathetic, since I know real (Lisp, not C++) macros are powerful, but I found reading Common Lisp macro code pretty painful. Maybe the pain subsides after a lot of reading, but I understand the argument in favor of readability here. Besides, you can always write a macro language for Ada if you really want. There is just no "standard" one. 4) Small number of operators to overload, see C++ Agreed. But where do you stop? Do you allow user defined operators? I suppose I would like to be able to create user defined arrays that behaved just like built-ins. 5) Lack of multiple inheritance, see C++ Show me a problem which requires MI and can't be solved fairly easily in Ada 95. There are quite a few online papers describing what you can do. 6) Big language, see BASIC Is that a limitation? -- Brian