The claims that Java is better than Ada because it is "pure" OO are false. False because that does not make a language "better," and false because Java is not "pure." The need to keep track, in Java, of when you must use 'new' and when you can't, and especially, the need to think on almost EVERY operation whether the semantics of the operation are primitive or reference is a real disadvantage to Java beginners. We must admit, though, that Ada does allow the same confusion in some cases. But it's much less than in Java, and in Ada it ONLY happens with types that have been DECLARED to be access. (I'm speaking about the fact that omitting 'all' sometimes refers to the pointer and sometimes to the access object.) I don't have the data to know whether it is a problem to experienced Java programmers. Many of the flaws in Java are there because the creators of Java were experienced C programmers. They omitted features that gave them trouble in C, but they left in bad features because they were experienced enough that they had developed good habits with regard to those bad features. I revised that last sentence three times, but couldn't make it clearer. I guess English is bad and I'll have to invent a new language. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau