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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ff5c149712ec0eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.68.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer1.kpn.DE!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 01:12:22 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
Organization: elsewhere
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Interfaces and the Liskov Substitution Principle
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705232101220.20072@th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de>
 <1179953657.839272.160320@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
 <f32d9o$fi9$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
 <1179991769.376381.252010@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
 <12h6mi42jcha0.7f9vfsnihjwr$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1180003336.1163.29.camel@kartoffel> <83abvs7sa9.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <465aa5ba$0$23147$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <fejl1qcv7.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
In-Reply-To: <fejl1qcv7.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <465b613a$0$23130$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 May 2007 01:09:46 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 0cd58321.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=C\V1h8]1ifQPU8j_I0DN6_ic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQFl8W>\BH3YRcCBG=b`1ohXA:ho7QcPOVSR@Q_PXM7iU_]JM>SK2iaOY
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15957
Date: 2007-05-29T01:09:46+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Markus E Leypold wrote:

>>>> that the principles guiding program design should come from the
>>>> solution to a problem, not from models
> 
> (But perhaps I'm reading even that quote wrongly). You've been
> basically advocating to invent new program architectures for every
> problem/solution pair, i.e. have a solution first than fit the "model"
> (language architecture, whatever) on your solution. 

No, not at all. Rather, much like biology starts from collecting
observations of living things, "prographology" may again
start from collecting observations of source texts and their authors.
Then we will see a number of cases

(1)  the source texts do not solve the problems
(2)  the source texts do solve the problems, but we can't see how
(3)  the source texts solve the problems and we discover a pattern

Now, if a model contradicts (3), are you saying that the model is
right nevertheless and (3) is not relevant?