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: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.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: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:45:29 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1pjaxh4t9d3wt.6drtax6nv47t.dlg@40tude.net> References: <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com> <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com> <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <10d9w.55626$8w1.22302@fx12.iad> <150er0b62wsh3$.1xabmp81w5kdw.dlg@40tude.net> <2Oj9w.86043$uw3.37688@fx10.iad> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: wfRpp7ltpEWhI2na6kgpfA.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: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23359 Date: 2014-11-15T10:45:29+01:00 List-Id: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:24:10 -0800, Hubert wrote: > I tried to show that the conclusion I drew was valid, but not based on > an argument like the one you gave but instead for other reasons. The > fact that Ada is safer than C has nothing to do with the fact that the > OO techniques that are present in Ada as well as C++, Java and a host of > other modern language lead people to write badly planned software. No, this requires a demonstration, e.g. two similar projects designed by two similar teams. > Writing procedural software will instead lead to better planned software > because it forces people to do more planning. But procedural approach does not require more planning. No such thing at all. You can start writing much easier with procedural than with OO! It seems that you imply that since programmers know that procedural approach is somewhat inferior, crude and unsafe, they would pay more attention to the architecture and design. They *won't*. And procedural is indeed crude, inferior and unsafe. And this is exactly the argument why C would be better than Ada. Somebody compared C with a hand grenade. Handling hand grenades makes you attentive ... but you get killed in the end, nonetheless. And it is a strange kind of promotion by stated inferiority. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de