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: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Top 10 Worst C# Features
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:34:40 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <msd2ph$42i$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1509021228510.5314@debian>
 <ms7j9r$ho$1@loke.gir.dk> <ms8ve0$57u$1@dont-email.me>
 <qhnt03p42wpx.14ag6pufzdynl$.dlg@40tude.net> <ms9bdu$gkl$1@dont-email.me>
 <ms9cm8$leh$1@dont-email.me> <msa62d$74p$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <msbhc8$6qq$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1441402481 4178 24.196.82.226 (4 Sep 2015 21:34:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:34:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:27704
Date: 2015-09-04T16:34:40-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Georg Bauhaus" <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> wrote in message 
news:msbhc8$6qq$1@dont-email.me...
...
> So, while there is no problem with
> either a very flexible O-O system emulated in C, or with having the Ada
> compiler help with earlier binding, both approaches do not handle events
> in the language.

I have not the slightest clue as to what "handling events in the language" 
would look like, assuming Ada doesn't have it. "Events" to me are just calls 
(dynamic control flow), and I don't see anything sensible that would make 
calls "better". Perhaps a lack of imagination on my part.

> That's not a problem, but it is an opportunity, I think.

Opportunity for what, madness? Event-driven GUI programming is just one step 
short of madness as it is, I'd hate to expand that. Such code is necessarily 
unstructured spaggetti, because every routine has to be able to handle 
anything in essentially any order.

Much like OOP itself, I don't see it having much application away from the 
GUI (and I'm dubious that it is that good of an organization even for a 
GUI). As such, it doesn't make much sense in a general purpose programming 
language.

                             Randy.