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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Joachim Durchholz Subject: Re: Building blocks (Was: Design By Contract) Date: 1997/09/06 Message-ID: <3411C774.2F2A717D@munich.netsurf.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270348115 References: <5ulurp$aj8$1@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <5un58u$9ih$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Geert Bosch wrote: > I find that it is often better to combine simple building blocks > into the more complex one you need, than to use a more complex > feature that is not exactly what you need and may be overkill. When > combining ill-defined over-complex things like MI, C++ templates > and exceptions, you know for sure the result will be too complex > and not what you want. That myth again... MI by itself is neither complex nor ill-defined. Its C++ implementation is. If you want to see MI How It Should Be Done, look at one of the various Eiffel books. On the "building blocks" argument, I agree. Of course this will work only if language features are truly orthogonal. C++ is extremely bad in this respect, Ada is ways better (Eiffel really shines here, one has to actually look at the language to believe it). Regards, Joachim -- Please don't send unsolicited ads.