From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.etla.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:51:07 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <150er0b62wsh3$.1xabmp81w5kdw.dlg@40tude.net> References: <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com> <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad> <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com> <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com> <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com> <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <10d9w.55626$8w1.22302@fx12.iad> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: p9a8jKAGz0rpkSSbWxF1gQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:190580 Date: 2014-11-14T09:51:07+01:00 List-Id: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:36:06 -0800, Hubert wrote: > That is a point that I have been contemplating for a while now but in > conjunction with Object Oriented Programming. When I look back at my > career I realize that I became lazier and lazier in terms of designing > before programming with the advent of OOP. I think OOP is designed to to > just that: Hmm, actually OOD and OOP require more upfront design than traditional procedural approach. Ad-hoch subprograms are much easier and quicker stuff than ad-hoc type + subprograms (=class) with thinking about possible inheritance etc. > Give you a false sense of "naturalism" and "ease" because > "objects are so natural to the way humans think" and "everything in > nature is an object" etc. OK, that is OOA religion. You don't need to belive in objects created by God in order to carefully design types your program is going to use. In fact Ada was always OO, as you could define new types and provide operations for these types in Ada 83. It even had some form of inheritance in the form of type cloning (type X is new Integer). Some used to say that Ada 83 was object-based, but not fully object-oriented. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de