>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?