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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-12 09:08:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: 12 Sep 2003 12:02:05 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1063382673 22706 128.183.235.92 (12 Sep 2003 16:04:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Sep 2003 16:04:33 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42415 Date: 2003-09-12T16:04:33+00:00 List-Id: tmoran@acm.org writes: > > > that demonstrates that MI does not work in general. > >... this is a counterexample to the notion that > >multiple inheritance from some set of bases is useful. > "work in general" can mean, and I think was intended to mean, "work in > all cases", and clearly a single counterexample disproves that. "work in > general" could also take a less formal meaning of "work most of the time", > and I suspect that's the way Hyman took it. In that interpretation of > course, the statement is not disproved by a single counterexample. And that, I think, is a key difference between the C++ design philosophy and the Ada philosophy. I think we can all agree on this statement: C++ style multiple inheritance is useful in some situations, and gives surprising results in others. The C++ design philosophy says "Since it's sometimes useful, let's do it; user beware of the surprising stuff". The Ada design philosophy says "Since it's sometimes surprising, we can't do it; let's find another way to provide the useful functionality". kind of a glass half full / half empty thing. -- -- Stephe