Re: A bad counterintuitive behaviour of Ada about OO

["J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr>]

Le 07/08/2014 14:28, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>> No doubt? I'm very happy that elementary types are kept separate from
>> > all the OO stuff, for example...
> Is it OO being able to write a class-wide numeric Sort, Put, Image,
> container?
I prefer generics for that kind of stuff. It keeps my types independent,
and it doesn't need any dispatching.

> Anyway, it would help to indicate reasons for this happiness. I see no gain
> in having types and not-quite types in the language. And there are lot of
> problems with not-quite types in Ada concerning safety, reuse,
> maintainability (Ada's key features, BTW).

Because good ol' elementary types are much simpler to understand, and
more efficient to implement. Classification makes sense only if you have
heterogeneous data structures that manipulate various types belonging to
a same class. This is rarely the case for elementary types.

It happened to me several times that I consulted for a client, and
simplified design a lot by /removing/ unnecessary classification.

Now I come to think that some people have a mind turned to
classification and others not - maybe related to being left- or
right-brained? But please, because you have a certain (respectable) way
of thinking, don't assume that everybody must have the same. There's
more than one way to skin a cat!

-- 
J-P. Rosen
Adalog
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00
http://www.adalog.fr