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,e7ceb00d83425e3a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.usenet4all.se!reader.usenet4all.se!not-for-mail
From: John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Prototyping with Ada
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 12:32:48 +0100
Message-ID: <5kgq34po8tmg50p8v75a1810ug5gmpfg03@4ax.com>
References: 
 <ba91fec6-cfc1-4b48-ad96-fa2a233e66f4@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
 <878wy9uyg9.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <d419cb3c-da09-42f8-98a6-75bba927167c@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
 <87zlqptajv.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <7f3435c6-bacb-4e02-a1de-2e73a417ba6c@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
 <87r6c0sei2.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <pan.2008.05.18.00.35.38.923802@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <87k5hsrqbi.fsf_-_@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <8e953413f88u9slj1es57kuegqdvn908ul@4ax.com> <u3aoabufs.fsf@nasa.gov>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 May 2008 13:32:46 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: de4ae80b.reader.usenet4all.se
X-Trace: 
 DXC=X?I;TV;6^WXQCABHe_k[X]]=V>ZL5o1]R<moHH[O[>ZZbId:;I29VW\V6JHHYA5m[^RXU18\Hb4H^;n8mkAja`DV<]5fTcQIh=]:@nP<Afo;CQN4nRTURe15X
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet4all.se
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:422
Date: 2008-05-28T13:32:46+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 22 May 2008 04:43:19 -0400, Stephen Leake
<Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote:

>John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk> writes:
>

>> If you approach the whole thing from the point of view you describe,
>> then you're just taking what may be poor quality code and making it a
>> bit better, which doesn't necessarily make the code (or design!) good.
>
>If you do refactoring right, you can incrementally improve the quality
>of code.

Code quality, yes (but your use of the term "right" is very
important!). It is much more difficult to refactor an inadequate
design at that point.