Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 08:48:55 +0000 (UTC), Stan Mills wrote:

> On 2014-11-17, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 08:11:03 +0000 (UTC), Stan Mills wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-11-14, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> 1. Reuse is in order of magnitude easier and safer when with OO.
>>> 
>>> That's when it's done properly and qualified people write the objects *and*
>>> qualified people deploy the objects. The way OO is used now is as a crutch
>>> to allow labor-quality "coders" work over their heads. This is dangerous.
>>
>> Yes. But you cannot hire topnotch guys for every project. It is all about
>> engineering vs art. Engineers are average guys. The tools they handle must
>> fit an average guy. How otherwise could you predict the costs and quality
>> of a product?
> 
> Yes you can hire topnotch guys for every project and you should because
> hiring the best guys is the best way to save money!

There is not enough such people per definition. If only X % were suitable
for hiring what other 100 - X % would do? If they cannot earn money for
living you won't get enough programmers base to select topnotch X guys from
them. Economics does not work that way.

In engineering you cannot rely on excellence. Excellence is unreliable.
Engineering is, because it is based on average people and average tools.

> Topnotch guys don't cost you anything, they pay for themselves and
> then some.

It is not a question of money. They are not there for any price.

>>> True. Now what about the benefits of reusability? Can we conclude software
>>> reusability is only good locally when the guy reuses his own good code, but
>>> unqualified people using other people's code is harmful? I think so.
>>
>> No. Reusability is the only way to move forward. Complexity will continue
>> growing and there is no other means to fight it than per reuse.
> 
> Again there are two forms of reuse. There is the dumb form where reuse
> enables people to use unqualified people to work over their heads, above
> their abilities. This is a mistake and costs people money.

The only good reuse is dumb reuse.

> The form of reuse where it's only reuse in that it was done properly and can
> be used by qualified people who could have done all that work, only it was
> already done and they fully understand it so now they can save time and do
> other things.

You are contradicting to yourself. If you rely on extraordinary people,
they certainly could reuse unsafe, overcomplicated components. Compare this
to usual C advocacy: "no competent programmer would do that stupid bug."

> Complexity growth is the problem and it's a symptom of bad design.

No. It is a result of the natural process of maturity. Modern cars are
incomparably more complex than first cars. Nevertheless they are better
designed and safer. Modern software does more functionally with more
constrains set upon it (non-functionally), this necessarily makes it more
complex. Engineering is the only way to maintain complexity, not reducing
complexity, that is not possible.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de