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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx01.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64;
 rv:30.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/30.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A bad counterintuitive behaviour of Ada about OO
References: <lrrdm1$u6n$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <932kntuq5rrr.8sumwibqrufn.dlg@40tude.net> <lrrha0$6mh$3@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1ohy7vnbntskq$.h139ov04mlxu$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <b54d73cd-a0ad-4755-9923-f02cfa43f81d@googlegroups.com>
 <lrvf3f$sd0$1@dont-email.me> <fuhzyiqbbxi1.177yako16rvfm.dlg@40tude.net>
 <lrvn8u$cgd$1@dont-email.me> <xmabybhkwzku.189kwtirj3izb$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <lrvv95$ba$1@dont-email.me> <1lREv.450693$4n.74225@fx31.iad>
 <ls1vf5$c3a$2@dont-email.me>
In-Reply-To: <ls1vf5$c3a$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <mD%Ev.229884$AN6.142135@fx01.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@teranews.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 08:12:02 UTC
Organization: TeraNews.com
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 02:12:00 -0600
X-Received-Bytes: 2045
X-Received-Body-CRC: 279224321
X-Original-Bytes: 2062
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:188235
Date: 2014-08-08T02:12:00-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 08-Aug-14 01:49, J-P. Rosen wrote:
> that's why I regularly object to the
> argument that "you can do everything with OOP, therefore you must do
> everything with OOP".

I certainly agree.
One of the biggest disservices the CS education establishment has done 
[IMO] is to push OOP (and especially extensibility) to the point that 
many CS graduates have the idea that "if you can't extend it, it's 
bad/worthless/flawed."

Restriction is so pervasive [we all used it in math, esp. for proofs], 
and useful that I find it amazing that Ada's Subtype facility *isn't* a 
common thing in programming languages -- and there are [lots of] 
programmers who seem not to grasp the utility thereof. :(

I mean you really can't use OOP to do:
    Subtype Natural_Float is Float range 0.0 .. Float'Last;
    Function Sqrt( X: Natural_Float ) return Natural_Float;
{At least not elegantly.}