Re: Ada Annoyances

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 27/06/2017 22:38, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> I say "almost" because I don't believe in making absolutest statements. But
> if one uses Ada as it was intended, and don't try to fit designs from other
> languages into it, there aren't any problems here.

I disagree. There are very serious problems with object 
initialization/finalization in Ada whatever pattern you use. Neither 
controlled nor constructing functions fulfill even reasonably minimal 
requirements on safety and usability. The problem is aggravated by the 
fact that you cannot foresee the consequences of any choice. It may hit 
you months later on the road in some descendant type. I had cases when I 
had to start over from scratch several times. The situation is 
absolutely unacceptable for Ada as a language for software engineering.

> But all I see here is you trying to prove that C++ is better than Ada.

That is a bit unfair.

He only said that C++'s initialization model is perfect. Well that is 
wrong. However true is that the language must support user-defined 
type-specific constructors, non-overridable and with parameters. This is 
not enough to make initialization working but it is a required part of it.

You say that Ada's initialization model is tolerable because there 
cannot be anything better. This is inconsistent with very notion of 
strong typing. If type safety cannot be supported we must say goodbye to 
strong types.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de