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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a270a1fc28d4f812 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-26 09:30:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news-x2.support.nl!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OOD in Ada? Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:55:21 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3d135676$0$8511$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com> <3D1440FA.9030409@ib-paus.com> <8db3d6c8.0206221933.496d3904@posting.google.com> <3D1554AF.6050001@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1025031323 8342 136.170.200.133 (25 Jun 2002 18:55:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Jun 2002 18:55:23 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26717 Date: 2002-06-25T18:55:23+00:00 List-Id: 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" 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 ... :-)