Re: A bad counterintuitive behaviour of Ada about OO

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:58:20 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Le 07/08/2014 09:41, Maciej Sobczak a écrit :
>> No way. :-D With type/interface schizophrenia, lack of MI, controlled
>> as a base class, unsafe (!!!) handling of dispatch during
>> initialization/finalization and no support for type covariance on
>> return type Ada is way more broken than other languages I am aware
>> of. I mean - in its handling of OO it's almost as broken as Java.
>> 
>> No trolling here - I really consider the above issues to be problems.
>> OO in Ada definitely looks like a patchwork, not a consistent
>> language feature.
> 
> Rather say that there are two kinds of OO programming languages: those
> that consider OOP as one tool among others, to be used when (and only
> when) appropriate, and the "pure" OO languages where OOP is the only way
> to do everything. Ada clearly belongs to the first category.

You are conflating OOA/D (SW design technique) with the features of the
language type system. You may not use OOA/D, I don't. But there is no
slightest doubt that the type system must have the features described
above.

> Of course, there are similarly two kinds of programmers. You belong to
> the second category (no bad feelings intended), but some of us belong to
> the first one.

Let's take another example, formal correctness proofs. Very few programmers
will ever use them at full. Yet, there is no doubt that Ada must support
proofs at all levels - type invariants, subprogram's pre-/post-conditions,
pre-/post-conditions and loop invariants within the control flow.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de