Re: OOD in Ada?

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

If you start changing Ada to have "class" constructs and object->method
syntax and so on to make the Java/C++ programmers comfortable, you're just
migrating Ada into becoming Java/C++ rather than being what it is. Assuming
you could get there at all, you'd end up having to change so many paradigms
and assumptions within the language, that it would either get broken badly
or just start being C++/Java only with some slight variations. Once you do
that, why bother with Ada at all? Why not just go use Java/C++?

It doesn't seem like it is worth it to start changing syntax and structures
that will be non-orthogonal with the rest of Ada & make existing programs
either broke or unrecognizable or confusing (New-Ada syntax or Old-Ada
syntax?). To upset the installed base of users and the installed base of
code by that much, you'd have to really believe there is some huge benefit
to be had. So far, there is no evidence that anything is that badly broke or
that changing anything is going to win thousands of new converts. If Ada is
sinking, its just re-aranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If Ada is
growing, eventually the converts will get used to what is already there. Its
not as if these superficial things are *preventing* anyone from
accomplishing some important goal. A (possibly "ugly" in the eyes of some
beholders) solution does exist.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
news:afab31$a4c$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
>
> As a first step, try one of your programs with capitals
> made lower case, and do not use a monospaced font.
> Look at your Ada++ program then :-)
>
> (Then, make keywords use a bold grotesque and identifiers
> italic (antiqua), Symbols for symbols. Look again ... :-)