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!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Annoyances Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:36:51 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <1ac5a44b-4423-443a-a7bb-2864d9abe78f@googlegroups.com> <1498048151.20885.28.camel@obry.net> <96174ea5-852d-44e9-8535-7c1eb24d5326@googlegroups.com> <8d3aff06-82df-485f-89e5-a50c326aab05@googlegroups.com> <66aa262e-2ac9-4016-b32d-e9fee14779e1@googlegroups.com> <88e2f18a-0786-4303-a5b8-fe82e8c81dcb@googlegroups.com> <71c4fdcd-4213-4b84-b852-c8674cfaf717@googlegroups.com> <98197f40-9833-4bb8-87ca-1593d2da7c81@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: vZYCW951TbFitc4GdEwQJg.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Language: en-US Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:47208 Date: 2017-06-30T09:36:51+02:00 List-Id: On 30/06/2017 02:42, Randy Brukardt wrote: >> Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message >> news:oj29fa$m41$1@gioia.aioe.org... >> On 28/06/2017 22:50, Randy Brukardt wrote: >>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message >>> news:oivou5$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