For a programming language that has so much right, Ada sure has oop syntax
wrong. What's more is the syntax is inconsistant with a lot of things that
Ada got right and other languages didn't.

One of the strengths of Ada is the lack of ambiguity in code.

In Pascal you have either:

if then
statement;

or:

if then
begin
end;

or:

if then
begin
end
else
begin
end;

In C/C++/C#/Java you have a similar arrangment.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:26:03 -0700, Steve wrote:

Method is not an "entity" of an object. Note that the notation you are
advocating for is plainly inconsistent. Observe that the relation between a
method and *one* of the types of its arguments is just not 1-1.

The most notorious example when it becomes essential is multiple
dispatching operations. Operation Draw does not belong either to Device or
to Glyph.

1-1 mapping is inconsistent with operations having more than one argument
(including result). Thus any of the languages you have mention are not
OOPLs, as they necessary have types not obeying OO.

[...]

Well, then let me explain you how to deal with OO! (:-))

Steve wrote:

Do you know http://mats.weber.org/thesis/Ada-Extensions.pdf ?

Not sure if it's spot on for you but well worth the read, IMHO.

--Oliver

Steve wrote:

Why is it OK for the non-predefined operations of some types (integer,
enumeration, untagged records, ...) to be separate from the type declaration,
but not for tagged records? I'm not a fan of programming by extension (the
correct name for OOP, which has nothing to do with object orientation), but you
should at least be consistent in your objections.

There are three thing about OPPs and Ada.

First, the concept of OOP reached it highest point after Ada 95 was out.
And since then it has falling out of favor with most programmers that are
not writing GUI applications. Also, most Ada partitions are not GUI based.

Second, during the vote for Ada 2005/2007 specs the only major player
was Adacore creators of the GNAT Ada. But some of the major OOP
designers such as IBM, current UNIX owner (I do not use their name),
Apple, Sun, and etc stay way from addressing or voting on
Ada 2005/2007 specs or about OOP. That's one reason Adacore's GNAT
is the only Ada 2005 package around.

Third, Microsoft which is the biggest OPP player around has never dealt
with Ada as a language.

So, if you want OOPs in a big way you will need to use another
language.

In <_9adnb1KYvIrW87VnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Steve" comcast.net> writes:

anon wrote:

What's wrong with Novell?

Bye...

Dirk

From the licensing agreement with Novell that Judge Kimball did not over
turn, what I called current owner of UNIX are the ones that can sell UNIX
to a third party, such as SUN and Microsoft.

Also at the movement Novell is playing with a couple of versions of SuSE
Linux.

In , Dirk Heinrichs writes:

anon wrote:

Being allowed to sell something doesn't mean they own it. Novell owns Unix,
nobody else does.

???

Bye...

Dirk
--
Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111
Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: dirk.heinrichs@capgemini.com
Wanheimerstraße 68 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com
D-40468 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733
GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: wwwkeys.pgp.net

Novell owning the "copyright" does not mean they own UNIX. Just like
GNU owning the "copyright" to GNAT does not mean they own GNAT Ada.

Actually the company I am talking about owns at least of 5%%, purchased
back in 1994/5 and anyone that owns even one party can say they own
it. It just that Novell owns by a Judges decision the controlling interest.
But the purchase limits some of there rights on both sides.

And the name "UNIX" is own by someone else. Even Novell admit that.

Besides the owners of the "Copyright" there is:

"Intellectual Property" of UNIX which a list of companies such as the
old AT&T labs, SUN, SGI, IBM, NOVELL, etc own a part. And the company
that I call the "current owners", has some "Intellectual Property" in UNIX
as well.

Then there are the "Patents" and that's a larger group of companies which
include the list of "Intellectual Property" and including companies like
Microsoft with its additions to XENIX, Exxon who owns Zilog and their
version on UNIX. etc.

And there are others topic as well that can calm ownership to some or
all of of any routine or language. Including the group that wrote the
language use in creating the software.

"Oliver Kellogg" users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:g313nr$uih$1@online.de...

I haven't read the entire document yet, but plan to. It looks very
interesting indeed.

Regards,
Steve