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: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!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: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 10:51:15 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <932kntuq5rrr.8sumwibqrufn.dlg@40tude.net> <1ohy7vnbntskq$.h139ov04mlxu$.dlg@40tude.net> <1a329b5c-49d6-419d-91a2-ebeebc2d9b3e@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 08:51:18 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="23dab0694e4174fdc880833ec67fa650"; logging-data="4245"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SeJ9NjkoyCoJmlflOTqPu" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 In-Reply-To: <1a329b5c-49d6-419d-91a2-ebeebc2d9b3e@googlegroups.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:4DdtpXyTmEhvcjCziCa6IGYnlaw= X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:188240 Date: 2014-08-08T10:51:15+02:00 List-Id: 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. (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. -- 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