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: 103376,96ed71365ee11846
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Limitations of Ada
Date: 1996/07/30
Message-ID: <dewar.838767052@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171238901
references: <96072915521064@psavax.pwfl.com> <4tlpfa$cr9@bagan.srce.hr>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Kazimir commented on alledged limitations of Ada

1) Not 100 % OO, see Smalltalk

    Shrug, this is more of a religeous comment than a technical one!

2) Without distributed objects, see Modula-3

    This is wrong, read annex E

3) Lack of MACROS, see C++

    This is an intentional part of the design, see Steelman

4) Small number of operators to overload, see  C++

    Incomprehensible, all operators and subprograms are overloadable in Ada

5) Lack of multiple inheritance, see C++

    Not necessarily a lack at all, see Tucker Taft's paper

6) Big language, see BASIC

    More of a comment, than a limitation. After all you could equally say
    that it is a limitation of BASIC that it is a small language.