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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a0be06fbc0dd71f1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out02a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in04.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr13.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <20071229040639.f753f982.coolzone@it.dk> <13oe680qard6u2d@corp.supernews.com> <47887709.9030107@obry.net> <47889568.3010507@obry.net> Subject: Re: The future of Ada is at risk X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.67.169 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr13.news.prodigy.net 1201056761 ST000 70.134.67.169 (Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:52:41 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:52:41 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: TSUGW^WETZSMB_DX]BCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^RR@ETUCCNSKQFCY@TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK@TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG@SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC@VJM Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:52:41 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19547 Date: 2008-01-23T02:52:41+00:00 List-Id: "Gary Scott" wrote in message news:R%6ij.13868$6%.6087@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com... > > Using a properly structured naming convention is superior to defining a new > datatype that is internally identical with dozens of other types but with a > different name. It is especially disastrous in mixed language programming to > use too many non-unique data types. The research necessary to discover the > interface is enormous. > This depends on the design of the system and where one defines those types. When one declares a lot of new types in a global package specification, your assertion is often true. However, most experienced Ada designers do not create global type packages. Sometimes, it is useful to design a numeric type where there is no visibility to the structure. For example, I like to use opaque types in some designs. Other times, with Ada, we can design a numeric type where the operators are unique for that type. For example, package Own_Number is type Number is private; function "+" (L, R : Number) return Number; -- functions for all other operators Number_Error : exception; private type Number_Type; type Number is access Number_Type; end Own_Number; Now we can constrain the Number_Type within the package body and design the operators in any way we wish. While this is extreme, it is sometimes a useful approach to solving some problems. I find Ada more amenable to this kind of design than most languages. Richard Riehle