Re: A bad counterintuitive behaviour of Ada about OO

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

Le 08/08/2014 09:48, Maciej Sobczak a écrit :
>> You belong to the second category

> I did not write anything that would allow you to make such claims. In
> fact, I find myself using OOP very rarely in my current projects -
> but when I do it I expect consistent support.
Sorry, "you" was addressed to Dmitry (I hope he will agree to be
designated as "OOP purist" ;-) ).

>> but some of us belong to the first one.
> 
> And you are OK with broken support for the tool that you are using
> occasionally? This is dangerous as it allows to justify broken
> support for every other language feature - after all, every one is
> just "one tool among others". Ada should do better than that.
> 
1) I never missed the features that you (and others) argue are missing
to Ada, therefore I don't feel that Ada is "broken" in that aspect

2) I am afraid that adding those features would have an adverse effect
on other parts of the language that I do use. My feeling (but I'm ready
to be corrected) is that you can't have the same features in a "pure" OO
language and in a "mixed paradigms" language, because of different
trade-offs.

<rant> (not specially addressing anybody in particular)
I'm a bit tired of those messages here claiming that Ada is "broken".
Ada is not perfect, it is "only" the best language for software engineering.
Ada has a big disadvantage: like any sophisticated technic, it needs to
be taught, and it needs to be learned. My general advice is: learn how
to use it; sometimes, you'll have to do things in less straightforward
ways than in other languages, but that's the price to pay for the added
safety. In the end, you'll win.
</rant>

-- 
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