Re: Package's private parts and protected types

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 8 fév, 11:10, "Alex R. Mosteo" <alejan...@mosteo.com> wrote:
> Frankly, these non-orthogonalities about regular and protected/tasks types
> were really nagging me in Ada95 (the dot notation only for these types, for
> instance, and the visibility of privates that you point to). Now at Ada05,
> it's the mix of traditional and OO notation caused by interfaces what bugs
> me.
Although I've never confessed it here at comp.lang.ada, I feel the
same too, at least about notation. Luckily, Ada still allow me to
preserve consistency granting me the choice to use a dotted notation
or not : I never use the dotted notation for consistency and clarity
purpose (except that it's mandatory with protected types and tasks,
and that's ok for me with record components, as it's implementation
level).

> Also, the fact that making a protected version of a regular object involves
> so much boilerplate code is a regular déjà-vu that pains me in my dreams
> (;-)), compare it to java where adding the keyword synchronized is enough.
> (Not that I would want java granularity for synchronized; the bugs I've seen
> caused by "clever" overoptimization of critical sections...)
I could not tell about comparison between Java and Ada at this point,
as I've never experienced tasking with Java (I use to self-learn Java,
but quickly leave it for some reasons). While the point you've spotted
seems interesting.