Re: Ada Annoyances

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

On 30/06/2017 02:42, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
>> news:oj29fa$m41$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 28/06/2017 22:50, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
>>> news:oivou5$cfh$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> On 27/06/2017 22:38, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> OOP seems to me to be incompatible with strong typing.
>>
>> That depends on what you call OO. There is nothing new in OO except for
>> types representing classes of related types. Why should that be
>> incompatible with strong typing?
> 
> ???  Both type extension and dynamic dispatching are unique to OOP. (You
> could emulate them with composition, but that doesn't do the same violence
> to strong typing.)

I meant the second. The first is rather an implementation detail. The 
derived type need not to inherit the parent's representation.

I don't see why either should have any effect on strong typing. Ada 95 
perfectly resolved the problem.

(It is like saying that numeric types are bad for strong typing because 
in FORTRAN you could pass INTEGER*4 for REAL*8.)

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