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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,54889de51045a215 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-20 18:46:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Stephane Richard" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3F7316F7.219F@mail.ru> <17cd177c.0310010606.52da88f3@posting.google.com> <3F8BC74F.2CFBFF37@0.0> <1066312000.671303@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1066322883.139702@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F8F372D.9040801@comcast.net> <3F8F4559.50306@noplace.com> <3F929FC8.9070901@noplace.com> Subject: Re: += in ada X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:46:03 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.149.82.27 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1066700763 141.149.82.27 (Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:46:03 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:46:03 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1241 Date: 2003-10-21T01:46:03+00:00 List-Id: "Wes Groleau" wrote in message news:e4WdneVLhtPUGQmiU-KYgw@gbronline.com... > > Interfaces I think there may be some value to. *** So do I, but not at all costs, in some situations I found iterfaces sacrificed some native capabilities of OOP no matter the language. Besides if you use polymorphism right combined with good naming conventions, there's no need for interfaces ;-). but on very big scale projects maybe an inteface can be good to force a minimal proper implementation of an related object. > > But Object.Method ? > *** I agree here, not sure what the point is to object methods. That would be like trying to sell me an orange and what I want is an apple but the selling argument would be that an orange is a fruit and therefore can take the place of my apple ;-). > I can understand (though I disagree with) someone > who believes that > > X += 1 > > is easier to read than > > Inc(X) > > But someone who is not capable of learning and using > both is not capable of being a competent programmer. > *** Indeed, programming is a context related exercise. Hence if I'm in Ada, Pascal, I'll use Inc(X) and smile, if I "have to" use C or C++ I'll use += and smile (though a bit less ;-). But I also fail to see why one should be used over the other. += certainly didn't make or break C or C++ and he or she (I'm an equal oppurtunity flamer ;-) who thinks otherwise needs to do a detailed history review of C and C++ ;-). > The same applies to Method(Object) vs. Object.Method > > Please explain to me WHY someone thinks this is a > "serious improvement" ? > *** My theoretical, theoretical mind you, is that it's the first implementation they learned, and wouldn't want to change the way they understood it ;-). > -- > Wes Groleau > Can we afford to be relevant? > http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html > -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com