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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e5eb8ca5dcea2827
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dale@cs.rmit.edu.au (Dale Stanbrough)
Subject: Re: Ada OO Mechanism
Date: 1999/05/21
Message-ID: <dale-2105990836310001@r1021c-18.ppp.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 480300465
References: <7i05aq$rgl$1@news.orbitworld.net>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cs.rmit.edu.au
X-Trace: emu.cs.rmit.edu.au 927239789 13707 131.170.66.218 (20 May 1999
 22:36:29 GMT)
Organization: RMIT
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 May 1999 22:36:29 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-20T22:36:29+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

" I would like to ask a question, however.  In a recent thread
  entitled "A question for my personal knowledge" some people were saying
  that the Ada OO mechanism was counterintuitive.  I tend to agree.  This
  concern was dismissed by others as being merely "syntactic sugar", and
  claims were made that the Ada mechanism is actually easier to use than
  the C++ style."


I actually like the method.operation notation, but I don't find the lack
of it in Ada a really big problem. It _is_ syntactic sugar, in as much as
there are no semantic differences that can be attributed to it.

I think you get used to using whatever you use. Perhaps I would find
method.operation marginally better (you can easily find the dispatching
operand!), and it seems a bit more contextual (which i think is how 
people work).

Dale