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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,54889de51045a215
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-20 17:56:43 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:56:41 -0500
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:57:15 -0500
From: Wes Groleau <groleau@freeshell.org>
Reply-To: groleau@freeshell.org
Organization: Ain't no organization here!
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: += in ada
References: <3F7316F7.219F@mail.ru>
 <17cd177c.0310010606.52da88f3@posting.google.com> <3F8BC74F.2CFBFF37@0.0>
 <bebbba07.0310160049.3ede5878@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbot4oc.nr.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <1066312000.671303@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <w%yjb.783830$YN5.775353@sccrnsc01>
 <1066322883.139702@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F8F372D.9040801@comcast.net>
 <3F8F4559.50306@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0310181737.5e370815@posting.google.com>
 <3F929FC8.9070901@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0310191847.2d254e86@posting.google.com>
 <bn12if$sek$1@titan.btinternet.com>
In-Reply-To: <bn12if$sek$1@titan.btinternet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <e4WdneVLhtPUGQmiU-KYgw@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.9.86.116
X-Trace: 
 sv3-UD0aofAQ7YaewKHJneXshh4PcwO9Gh4gca9P9ev/Kub9Rj40GE61Bb3TxQlm1o+mJvmIe4fTSeZuLzl!idS3wmfFpp+676/88N2esaR1qqhOcwPfMyOmcbsUxew9kfEs4UUohYbX6VgiRQ0yMjJS89gUxGto!DA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1235
Date: 2003-10-20T19:57:15-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Dowie wrote:
> Well, for 200Y some serious 'C++/Java'-style improvements are on the
> cards (though not yet approved), e.g.
> 
> 'interfaces' a la Java, and
> Object.Method notation like C++/Java/etc.

Interfaces I think there may be some value to.

But Object.Method ?

I can understand (though I disagree with) someone
who believes that

   X += 1

is easier to read than

   Inc(X)

But someone who is not capable of learning and using
both is not capable of being a competent programmer.

The same applies to Method(Object) vs. Object.Method

Please explain to me WHY someone thinks this is a
"serious improvement" ?

-- 
Wes Groleau
Can we afford to be relevant?
http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html