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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,131f06967722ab4b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.rcn.net!news.rcn.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:12:06 -0600 Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 2005? References: <1103344064.372396.51420@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> From: jayessay Organization: Tangible Date: 20 Dec 2004 18:38:15 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.6.25.79 X-Trace: sv3-e71UUwhwKrIy46r6QaVqMI3DWx5Mj9vjPiVVpuqQywen7Qpn01BU2nqnxC/Tt6ZhSrKOZAKwgxejwnO!chXG2888GXJyr80KynAtCtM1mfQVLu1c7iBPPPMoDeSlj/1lU1ruvGtmGTKeH5IcJnoBxcTsXAIv X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.22 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7106 Date: 2004-12-20T18:38:15-05:00 List-Id: Brian May writes: > >>>>> "conradwt" == conradwt 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