Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!news From: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu (Philip Machanick) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Readability of Ada Message-ID: <1991Apr30.161615.12792@neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 30 Apr 91 16:16:15 GMT Article-I.D.: neon.1991Apr30.161615.12792 References: <3878@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> <20245@alice.att.com> <1991Apr23.193715.23815@odin.diku.dk> <1991Apr25.170356.21237@odin.diku.dk> Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 22 In article jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: >What I've demonstrated is that for a large number of inheritance >problems it is just as easy to use Ada--which never even claimed >to BE an OOP--as it is to use C++. No you haven't. You've demonstrated that C++ programmers have to think a bit to solve a specific problem, and the solution is not quite as clean as one may like it to be. The solution I posted nonetheless does use inheritance, and only requires replacing it by a clumsier mechanism in one place. This does reveal a weakness of C++, but not a fatal flaw. Nonetheless, it is at least partial support for half your argument. Now, to demonstrate the other half of your argument, you need to present the Ada solution. I've thought about it a bit and, in terms of your original problem statement, it isn't obvious to me. (How do you extend an enumerated type in Ada without running into problems with code that's already compiled?) I'm not an expert Ada programmer - maybe I'm missing something. Maybe we can all learn something from this, instead of treating it as yet another silly language war. Philip Machanick