TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: "David C. Hoos" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:02:06 +0300
Reply-To: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>; from "David C. Hoos" at Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:11:05 -0600
Organization: h w c employees, b f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (12 lines)
>First, Ada95 is fully OO.

Surely yes for the first "O", but not so certain for the second one.

>  If you don't think so, would you be so kind as to
>tell us which OO feature is missing from the language?

The problem is exactly opposite: Ada95 has all conventional OO features, but
it also has very important features that do not belong to common OO stuff.
For example, Ada packages. Do you think that the UML is right tool for design
and representation of Ada packages?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2