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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.180.72.205 with SMTP id f13mr623521wiv.4.1345237501124; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Path: q11ni181614079wiw.1!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.138.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!plix.pl!newsfeed2.plix.pl!wsisiz.edu.pl!news.icm.edu.pl!news.nask.pl!news.nask.org.pl!news.unit0.net!news.osn.de!diablo1.news.osn.de!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:08:37 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec? References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <502005b6$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <50203ca2$0$9512$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <502040c0$0$9510$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <50677fa2-7f82-4ccc-8c56-161bf67fefe1@googlegroups.com> <44bb5c96-a158-41c1-8e7d-ae83b2c0aca1@googlegroups.com> <1mchat48i3fos.1ksbz02nuzf5f$.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <502b832f$0$6579$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Aug 2012 13:08:31 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 570f21ad.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=X:RH\GIo`Li;iVb[J9ZZP`McF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kFjeYMIEonc\616M64>jLh>_cHTX3jmoTBE]jS@bak X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-08-15T13:08:31+02:00 List-Id: On 15.08.12 09:51, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:04:09 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > >> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message >> news:1mchat48i3fos.1ksbz02nuzf5f$.dlg@40tude.net... >>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:44:42 -0700 (PDT), Shark8 wrote: >>> >>>> "XML combines the efficiency of text files with the readability of binary >>>> files" -- unknown >>> >>> That one was great! (:-)) >> >> And accurate! Text files are quite a bit slower to access than binary files, >> which is OK if they are intended to be processed (read/modified) by humans. >> But XML is lousy at that (humans are not good at counting bracketing >> constructs). > > It has a vital psychological effect. Something simple to read and > understand will never be considered worth of money and efforts. > > On the contrary, a highly complicated mess requiring a heap of tools > mounted on each other, is a cool thing. Clearly, spending man-centuries on > designing all the garbage must indicate its great value in all fields of > software engineering! Like the situation that created Ada, the situation before agreed-upon means of data exchange between totally heterogeneous systems had created a highly complicated mess. To get at some piece of data it was required not only to have tools mounted each other, not only to know what section of bits may mean what, but integrating the mess also required a second order set of tools to make the first order set of tools work together. Fortunately, for non-internal data formats, getting at pieces of information in "foreign" data is now possible in a validating form by having the heterogeneous systems interchange data in an agreed-upon simple, structured, descriptive format. I would say that a network connecting the electrical devices of a car does not counts as heterogeneous.