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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Niklas Holsti Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Successor Language Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:15:47 +0300 Organization: Tidorum Ltd Message-ID: References: <5e86db65-84b9-4b5b-9aea-427a658b5ae7@googlegroups.com> <776f3645-ed0c-4118-9b4d-21660e3bba4b@googlegroups.com> <87602fbu2g.fsf@nightsong.com> <87po0mziqt.fsf@nightsong.com> <87fu1izfgs.fsf@nightsong.com> <878t75nwad.fsf@adaheads.home> <15b6f89f-997b-45ac-86b4-2e614bb624c2@googlegroups.com> <28a46046-e7eb-4306-bc39-72bc751831ae@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net ZnqU9aFduVfuAqBD8zsaNge2Nm+yBgvi45vKQznVpVOB/yMZXB Cancel-Lock: sha1:Jom2S/qPowTvuIOvC9l995ifOgQ= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53355 Date: 2018-06-27T00:15:47+03:00 List-Id: On 18-06-26 18:38 , Simon Wright wrote: > ric.wai88@gmail.com writes: > >> I hope I can opt to be out-side of this "Ada" community who seem bent >> on wasting copious time determining overly contrived ways of >> destroying Ada from the inside out.. Apparently because Ada's >> carefully enforced discipline is too inconvenient, or something. > > I agree with you. It feels as though we have a few people around who > enjoy wild flights of fancy. Hey, the subject is "Ada Successor Language". Some non-conventional ideas should be allowed, no? Regarding Dmitry's and my suggestions to split the OO concept into a few simpler primitives, instead of bundling them all into tagged types, it has been conventional to use just such a "building block" approach to defend some aspects of the design of Ada95 and later Ada versions -- most often, to defend the lack of built-in multiple inheritance, for which Ada is said to provide building blocks from which the designer can build the kind of MI she needs. Perhaps the suggestions for untagged record extension and class-wide types rooted in untagged types are not exactly building blocks -- I don't now see how tagged types could be built from such blocks -- but at least they are in same spirit. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .