Re: Ada 2005?

[jayessay <nospam@foo.com>]

Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> writes:

> >>>>> "conradwt" == conradwt  <conradwt@runbox.com> writes:
> 
>     conradwt> If so, why doesn't Ada have OO contructs similar to C++,
>     conradwt> Java, Eiffel, and Smalltalk to name a few where one
>     conradwt> passes a message to an instance of a class?
> 
> Why should Ada have OO constructs that are similar to other languages?
> 
> Ada is a different language, different history, and as such has a
> different approach to OO.
> 
> I like it; in fact the Object.Operation in the next version of Ada
> makes me kind of nervous (disclaimer: I have read the details; if I
> did, perhaps I would feel differently).

I haven't read this either.  That said, I hope it does not in any way
change the basic Ada precept of keeping separate namespace/module
construction and class/type/method definition.  The "distinguished
parameter" notion of other "typical class based OO object models" and
the typical conflation of classes and namespaces that goes with it is
actually a bad idea and broken concept.


/Jon

-- 
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com