From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Subject: Re: Ada 9X
Date: 12 Oct 89 15:22:49 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6754@hubcap.clemson.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 8910111843.AA11007@chance.mitre.org
From munck@COMMUNITY-CHEST.MITRE.ORG (Bob Munck):
> I hate to keep harping on this, but the emphasis of the Ada effort is (IMO)
>
> software engineering NOT programming languages
This has already been addressed; the object-oriented software
engineering paradigm is not currently being properly supported,
although Ada was largely designed around object-*based* concepts.
Continued evolution in object-oriented thinking has produced an
important new concept (multiple inheritance) which must now be
incorporated in support of current software engineering technology.
> life-cycle costs NOT development costs
Okay, let's consider life-cycle costs. In particular, let's consider
adaptability. The use of inheritance not only speeds up development,
but also dramatically increases the speed with which a system can be
modified. Where's the argument?
> large, many-person projects NOT utilities and "toys"
An inheritance hierarchy provides the conceptual infrastructure
which permits large, many-person projects (actually, entire software
organizations) to organize more effectively. It is fundamentally a
programming-in-the-large concept. Again: where's the argument?
> The life-cycle of a large system is longer, perhaps much longer, than
> the 10-year revision period of Ada. I have a hope that the life-cycle
> of large systems will become essentially infinite when coded in Ada;
> that they will no longer "die" and be entirely replaced by a major
> project, but rather "evolve" through many small improvement projects.
> ("WIS: never again!") Also, if we ever solve the managerial problems of
> software reuse, the contents of repositories will essentially be systems
> with very long life-cycles.
Wow. Now consider the fact that the evolution of an inheritance
hierarchy is precisely the way that such evolution can be done in
an organized manner, and that similar benefits can be brought to
the problem of repository organization.
> It is important to note that "a language that doesn't change" is not
> the same as freezing the current revision of the compiler.
But now for an incredibly simple question: if you are dead-set
on using Ada 83 forever, what prevents you from doing it? As
long as the validation suites continue, the compilers will
continue to revalidate, converging upon a bug-free condition.
Thus, why deny yourself the option of using a more modern 9X
software engineering technology? Keep 83 around as long as it
remains useful, and use pragma Interface and/or automatic translation
when you decide that 83 is no longer locally useful for a specific
part of your system.
Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1989-10-12 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1989-10-11 18:43 Ada 9X/Y Bob Munck
1989-10-12 15:22 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 [this message]
1989-10-12 15:50 ` Ada 9X Robert Firth
1989-10-12 18:58 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-12 19:20 ` William Thomas Wolfe, 2847
1989-10-13 14:46 ` Robert Munck
1989-10-15 20:48 ` Ada 9X/Y Scott Simpson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1991-04-24 15:12 Ada 9X byrne
1991-04-25 8:03 ` Matthias Ulrich Neeracher
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox