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: 103376,2078ce7aac45af5b
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.86.39 with SMTP id m7mr589238paz.4.1353009481963;
        Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:58:01 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 6ni83512pbd.1!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:57:35 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada202X : Adding functors
References: <0114d327-9f9f-4ad2-9281-56331d11a90c@googlegroups.com>
 <e33b09e3-7840-42d0-886b-8cf1ec7bf9d3@googlegroups.com>
 <15w6caje3zsh$.t5nqtwoa77x5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <NLWdnUlRH6U-kjjN4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
 <r00q8we9dpjp.1410izlwuflo3$.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <r00q8we9dpjp.1410izlwuflo3$.dlg@40tude.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Message-ID: <50a5492c$0$9523$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Nov 2012 20:57:32 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70e10e00.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=OFkY_KHKMM<RadXUBHgFh3ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1nkgeX?EC@@0L]_QDT8B6i?nc\616M64>:Lh>_cHTX3j=3HdkSeT1^<4
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-11-15T20:57:32+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 15.11.12 18:04, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> And I personally find functional decomposition bad.


But "anonymous" programming is very, very popular, always.  In
part this is a natural consequence of the benefits that some
programmers associate with anonymity:

When programmers have an easier time not needing to name what
they know (thus hide their "cultural capital"), they think it is
good for them. Their knowledge, their "intellectual property" is
well protected in nested, unnamed expressions. Second, when the
language lets them type less, this creates a win-win situation
for some, as follows:


(1) for programmers who can get away with writing less(*).
(2) for companies that cater to those programmers by supporting
    more anonymity in the language.
(3) for consultants who specialize in getting to know the lambdas'
    meanings

I hope that project managers will not be fooled, but in vain,
I suppose. The DRY principle often misunderstood, so much that
it has become an argument in a rhetorical arsenal of those
who prefer the writer over the reader.

__
(*) Getting away may literally mean to change companies
    and have others take care of their anonymous functions.