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: border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "J-P. Rosen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: A bad counterintuitive behaviour of Ada about OO Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 15:34:26 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <932kntuq5rrr.8sumwibqrufn.dlg@40tude.net> <1ohy7vnbntskq$.h139ov04mlxu$.dlg@40tude.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 13:34:29 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="23dab0694e4174fdc880833ec67fa650"; logging-data="362"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19M0d4uj3MkVlUG5D5c8QZr" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:O8y/lofAS+yOTYDcRppGsF1gxb4= X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:188213 Date: 2014-08-07T15:34:26+02:00 List-Id: 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