Re: A bad counterintuitive behaviour of Ada about OO

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Maciej Sobczak" <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:cc1e7f8d-e1f6-4e37-833c-da745e5a1a3c@googlegroups.com...
...
>In particular (1), I have pointed that that Ada's handling of dispatch 
>during
> initialization/finalization is *unsafe*. Obviously I'm not going to buy 
> the
> argument that a missing feature here is a price for added safety!

No, all you did is point out the (obvious) fact that Ada's handling of 
object initialization (or lack thereof) is unsafe. How that works for 
Initialization is just a tiny corner of the whole. It really does not make 
any sense to try to make some corner safer when the underpinnings are many 
times less safe to begin with. (In addition, this is not a solvable 
problem -- there are many types where no defined order of initialization 
would be safe. [Requiring the programmer to define such a thing simply 
provides an illusion of safety -- programmers make mistakes, and the 
consequences are much worse when safety appears to be achieved.])

There's a strong argument that Ada handles this area wrong from the 
beginning, but that will have to be fixed in other languages (we've done all 
we can for Ada).

                                                       Randy.