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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bd40601768eaf8fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: 'constant functions' and access constant params (was Re: Array of
 Variant Records Question...)
Date: 1999/09/28
Message-ID: <7sqc54$1va$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 530087279
References: <7r5vh3$imu1@svlss.lmms.lmco.com> <37d6a45c@news1.prserv.net>
 <eExB3.6$ZR.1146@news.wenet.net> <37d6ccb6@news1.prserv.net>
 <7r77i8$i08$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d7c116@news1.prserv.net>
 <7r8t21$ov5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d822a1@news1.prserv.net>
 <7reg02$t83@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <37DE8D09.C863CBC9@rational.com>
 <7roohh$s6r@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <37e01168@news1.prserv.net>
 <7rp86o$c6h@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <37E18CC6.C8D431B@rational.com>
 <7rs8bn$s6@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <37e2e58c@news1.prserv.net>
 <7s9nd0$cbe@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com> <37e8e067@news1.prserv.net>
 <7sas3p$bfa@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <7sc6b6$c6m$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <7socka$6u4@dfw-ixnews19.ix.netcom.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x23.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Sep 28 12:26:21 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-09-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7socka$6u4@dfw-ixnews19.ix.netcom.com>,
  Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Robert, one reason why I sometimes still look at the internal
> implemention of a subprogram is my distrust of comments over
> the life of a contract.  The comment may introduce me to what
> the subprogram does, but rarely tells me what it does not do.

Then the comments are defective, a vital part of documentation
says what the code does not do and WHY it does not do it. Bugs
in documentation are serious bugs, and competent programmers
treat them as such.

> When a contract is new, the comments are usually pretty
> reliable. As the program ages and is subjected to an increased
> level of  modification, "all bets are off."

Then it is being modified by incompetent people. yes, I
understand that this often happens, but be careful not to
create the impression that this is an inevitable or tolerable
state of affairs. Most programmers have horrible documentation
skills, and as far as I am concerned, that is a fatal flaw.
I would immediately get rid of a programmer who was not
competent at documenting their code, regardless of how
much of a wiz they were in getting things to "work".


  So it is, Robert, that I am
> so often, as you say, "completely lost."
>
> Fortunately, well-designed Ada software will export services
that
> do only one thing and are, as you so often emphasize, more
readable
> than writeable.  When looking at a C++ program, I am often
"completely
> lost" because there is so little hope of unraveling the
meaning of
> little modifications made to a program over its lifetime.  I
certainly
> cannot rely on the comments when using heavily maintained C++
code.
>
> Richard Riehle
> http://www.adaworks.com
>
>         * My copy of Hamlet is not immediately handy, but
>           I think I am pretty close to the original text.
>
>                                 Richard
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.