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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,93fa00d728cc528e X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,93fa00d728cc528e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-24 08:56:14 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.object Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!ray.com!news.ray.com!news.ed.ray.com!swlvx2!jgv From: jgv@swl.msd.ray.com (John Volan) Subject: Re: SOLVED! Decoupled Mutual Recursion Challenger Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 19:19:12 GMT Message-ID: <1994Oct20.191912.4971@swlvx2.msd.ray.com> References: <1994Oct12.224944.25566@swlvx2.msd.ray.com> <1994Oct17.205244.17450@swlvx2.msd.ray.com> <1994Oct18.221751.15457@swlvx2.msd.ray.com> <38289r$79m@oahu.cs.ucla.edu> <1994Oct20.121408@di.epfl.ch> Sender: news@swlvx2.msd.ray.com (NEWS USER) Keywords: Ada9X, "withing" problem Organization: Raytheon Company, Tewksbury, MA Xref: bga.com comp.lang.ada:7199 comp.object:7736 Date: 1994-10-20T19:19:12+00:00 List-Id: Robb.Nebbe@di.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) writes: >As an analogy consider a wall as representing a programming problem >and a language as providing a way to get to the other side. What you >have seen is a lot of "ugly workarounds" to go through the wall. >I saw at least one suggestion to go over the wall and another to >go around the wall but both were refused. Why? because the goal >had ceased being "getting to the other side" but instead had become >"going through the wall". Well, Robb, the goal (in my mind) was always to get *through* the wall, not to go around it. Several folks misunderstood my question to be how to get around the wall, but, at least for me, the goal didn't "cease" to be one thing and turn into another. Also, to be fair, I didn't really "reject" those alternatives, I merely said that they didn't meet my goal. I think that I was careful to accept those alternatives for what they were worth: They are useful for certain applications (but not perhaps the application I had in mind). I agree, sometimes, for some applications, all that is needed is a sidewalk. >- Robb Nebbe >P.S. the fact that some langauges provide a tool that will cut a >hole in the wall and install a door to the otherside may lead >some to believe that it is a good idea to go through the wall. >They must first answer the question "Why was the wall there in >the first place?" Ah, well, that is an interesting question. If the wall truly serves no purpose, then yes, I could see how going around it, or climbing over it, or even demolishing it entirely, would be preferable to taking the trouble to cut that hole and install that door. But what if the wall were the side of a *building*? Such a wall serves a very definite purpose: It separates the interior of the building from everything exterior to it, including things like weather and wild animals. It also separates the building from all the other buildings in the city. If one's goal is to find a convenient way to get *inside* the building, and not simply to take a stroll around it, then it is pointless to suggest going "around" the wall. Certainly, it is even more ridiculous to suggest climbing *over* the building! But I think the proprietors of the building would be a tad miffed if one were to suggest *demolishing* the wall. And, in a large city full of buildings, I don't think it is practical to suggest eliminating all walls entirely simply because the citizenry need to be able to go from one establishment to another in the course of their daily business. Luckily, "arcologies" are still stuff of science fiction, or the fevered dreams of former Soviet city planners. No, one just has to face the fact that walls are occasionally very valuable things, and having a door in the middle of a wall might just be exactly what is wanted. Especially if it's strategically placed to offer convenient access to those who have legitimate reasons for entering and exiting the building, but properly guarded against those who do not. Now, if your building material (programming language) is a relatively flimsy substance such as paper or rawhide or canvas, it may be quite easy to take a knife and cut yourself a nice, serviceable door-flap any time you want. On the other hand, if your wall is made of wood or brick or concrete, then yes, it does take a bit of sweat to saw or drill yourself a hole. Some folks who are used to roughing it in the wild in tents (and damn proud of it too!) might find all that effort ludicrous. A few of those folks might even suggest the use of dynamite -- but results are not guaranteed. However, there may be other people in this world who have learned how to work with stronger materials, and who are appreciative of having a nice, sound roof over their heads when the weather gets rough. Such people might not see the effort of cutting the hole as a waste at all. In fact, being conscientious civil engineers, they might even take the trouble to finish off the edges of the hole, install a lintel, baseplate, and hinges, mount the door, and, as an added courtesy to the client, include a doorknob and a deadbolt. Is that an "ugly workaround"? Only if it leaks in the rain! Analogies are lovely things, but they can be double-edged swords :-) --John Volan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Me : Person := (Name => "John Volan", -- Company => "Raytheon Missile Systems Division", -- E_Mail_Address => "jgv@swl.msd.ray.com", -- Affiliation => "Enthusiastic member of Team Ada!", -- Humorous_Disclaimer => "These opinions are undefined " & -- "by my employer and therefore " & -- "any use of them would be " & -- "totally erroneous."); --------------------------------------------------------------------------------