Re: Ada requires too much typing!

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 8 Cze, 10:53, "Martin Krischik" <krisc...@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:

> > In other words, you have been exposed to the overly object-oriented
> > style.
>
> And how is that any better then the over templatized way used today?

You mean - how is that any worse. :-)

The overly object-oriented style (OOO (tm)) promotes or even relies on
overly dynamic memory management model.
This naturally leads to Pointers Everywhere Driven Development (PEDD).

The overly templatized way has its disadvantages, but at least allows
to preserve the value-oriented design approach, which is simply safer.
With a reasonable use of typedefs (type renamings) I find it very
appropriate and readable.

> > As I've already said - this design approach is representative for
> > '80s. There is a reason for why today's most acknowledged libraries
> > are not designed this way.
>
> Yes, but it's speed over everything again.

No. I perceive it as safety over everything.

(yes, I'm intentionally provocative here, but there is a point,
really)

> This is why the why the STL  
> “classes” have no virtual destructor.

No. The STL classes have no virtual destructors, because they also
have no virtual functions and as such it makes absolutely no sense to
derive from them.

In other words, they are not intended for polymorphic use.

For comparison, think about IOStreams - this *is* a polymorphic
framework with lots of virtual functions. Take it as a proof that
design decisions in C++ are not "speed over everything". Polymorphism
just makes sense for IOStreams and it just does not for containers. Or
at least this is what C++ thought.

> vector<> had to be as fast as the  
> build in array.

Not really - it uses the dynamic memory, while built-in arrays do not
have to.

> Any  
> design compromise acceptable as long as speed is not compromised.

See IOStreams for contradiction of your claims.

> I don't like the STL much.

The designers of Ada.Containers did. ;-)

> The reason is that foremost I see myself as an  
> OO programmer and the language is just a tool.

I see myself as a software engineer and the paradigm is just a tool.

(again intentionally provocative here)

> Reading the rest of you post I wonder if C++ has given up on being an  
> object orientated language?

It has not given up anything, as the OO was never the focus. C++ is a
multi-paradigm language, like Ada. It supports OO but does not force
it.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com

YAMI4 - Messaging Solution for Distributed Systems
http://www.inspirel.com/yami4