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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-26 01:39:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!news.mailgate.org!newsfeeder.edisontel.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 10:48:07 +0200 Message-ID: <8at7nvg0psj4pqohp2afnkmp56k4lja4jj@4ax.com> References: <6jm2nv86sjlodss01sfvikv38jbilkusl7@4ax.com> <0465nv0eg57udvk6sp4jv8jaigt7dm5nm5@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1064565572 7188252 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42973 Date: 2003-09-26T10:48:07+02:00 List-Id: On 25 Sep 2003 14:12:04 -0700, aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) wrote: >Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> >> >there is a fundamental obstacle: Ada presumes >> >> >full and thorough design, while neither C++ nor Java don't. You can build >> >> >some half-prototype/half-product in C++ or Java, and hope to complete >> >> >(somehow) the rest of design and then the real application later. But it will be >> >> >much more difficult to follow that way in Ada. >> >> >> >> Why? Ada cannot prevent "C++ design". Also C++ does not enforce it >> >> that much. >> > >> >Certainly Ada cannot prevent, and C++ does not enforce anything. The difference >> >is in what is presumed in language design and to which degree. If you follow >> >the language design assumptions then the language's design trade-offs will work >> >for you; otherwise they will work against you, and you will spend much effort >> >for overcoming various obstacles and will suffer from various inconveniences. >> >> Right, but the language design assumtions do not influence the >> software design approach in a direct way. > >In practice there are always expectations about future implementation opportunities >and problems, and those expectations usually influence design substantially. Those are not related to the language design. >But what is more significant, if you aren't familiar with the problem domain, >then programming (or software engineering) terminology necessarily becomes your >internal design language; general notions (like List, Queue, etc.) usually >aren't enough, and for the rest part of the design you will use either forms >from a programming language or their imprecise glimpses. Right, but mostly, because the problem domain issues are very often minor comparing with the software design issues. Frankenstein is awaken. >> I do not see why it should >> be more difficult to make incomplete products in Ada. > >Because it takes much more expertise in the language for making useful imprecise >glimpses of the language's forms in Ada than in C++. Just becase Ada was designed >primarily for use in environments where competence in the problem domain can >be assumed (and therefore those things should no be needed), while C++ inherits >all its basic OO machinery from universal modelling language (Simula-67). It is a strange statement. You are comparing design purposes with heritage. It is apples and oranges. I do not see how C++ OO constructs make designing incomplete products easier than Ada OO constructs. >> >> Half-baked design is a result of half-baked programmes and uneducated >> >> managers. >> > >> >I think, no. It is most often a result of substantially incomplete problem >> >statement and incompetence (of the team) in problem domain. >> >> These are the consequences. > >Sometimes, but far from always. Quite often people that are generally educated >and sufficiently competent in some problem domain(s) are throwed to other problem >domains (in which they are incompetent) without any preliminary training. And >those people will have no other choice but to start with some vague model. To be competent, largely *implies* to know the limits of oneself competence. This is the key point. An incompetent manager is a universally one. An incompetent programmer always write the same program no matter which language he uses or what this program should do. >> >> >> >> >Given current circumstances regarding intellectual property, I can't resist >> >> >> >> >to ask question: if knowledge, rather than money, is a measure of success, >> >> >> >> >doesn't this mean that knowledge became a property in that science-oriented >> >> >> >> >society? -;) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In my dilettantish opinion, there is a difference, knowledge is >> >> >> >> difficult to separate from its carrier. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >But a carrier can be severely restricted (if not imprisoned... or even killed >> >> >> >after he shared his knowledge with another person) >> >> >> >> >> >> It would be too expensive. If you mean Stalin's methods, remeber that >> >> >> he was looting the potential built before him. >> >> > >> >> >So what? You certainly can't say that we have (or will have) too >> >> >little potential for looting. >> >> >> >> Yet, it gone and the empire collapsed. >> > >> >Yes, so what? Why not to repeat? Final collapse doesn't matter, it will be >> >somewhere in future and perhaps another generation will deal with it. >> >> Because the stock is empty now. > >You certainly mean Russian stock here; but I wrote not about particularly >Russia as it pertains to the current and future situation. I suppose you do >not think that the Western stock and generally worldwide stock is empty. It is finite. >> >Do you think that they dream that tomorrow Stalin or an equivalent will rule in their >> >own countries? >> >> Probably yes. > >So, you think that they all were very stupid. Irresponsible blind. >> >film "Triumph of Will" ("Triumph Des Willens", Leni Riefenstahl, 1935). >>... >> >Even in that film you will see that there was much more than moustache. >> >> To be like others, to share everything with others, to vibrate with >> others in an extatic "consensus"... > >No, that isn't an interesting part, it is too well-known thing (for that I'd >better recommend American film "Inherit the Wind"). What is really interesting >in "Triumph Des Willens", it is Hitler Youth and Labor Front reviews with >Hitler's speeches on them, and excellent Hitler's and especially Hess's performance >as actors (Hitler's mostly at various reviews and Hess's at the congress). >Hitler's speeches on those (Youth and Labor) reviews are very good public >presentations of important aspects of low-level integration ideology. And Hess >looks as true soul of that version of national-socialism during its takeoff phase. Come on, do you really believe that cheap shows might influence intellectuals? They ain't so stupid. They wished and are wishing to use circumstances (like Stalin or Saddam) in their own purposes. They consider these circumstances as a proof of their understanding of the world, and in the end start to enjoy them. >> >> >One serious problem of our time is that USA, being the Land of Engineers, >> >> >can't agree with that science and engineering aren't the same, and >> >> >consistently tries to convert science to engineering. >> >> >> >> Egh? How so. In my view USA is the last hope of humankind. >> > >> >Well, there were episodes in recent century when USA was indeed the last hope >> >of our sort of civilization, and USA fulfilled that hope. And that may be >> >repeated once more, who knows. But that does not imply that particular serious >> >problems can't be originated and developed in USA. And that does not imply >> >that all people outside USA should be hopeful spectators only. >> >> At least, they could stop accusing America in the faults of their own! > >What do you mean - which faults, and who is accusing? We are watching different BBC's! (:-)) >> While doing mathematics isolates? > >What isolates is losing the sense of abstraction. It is not too harmful while >it isn't overwhelmingly widespread among the educated people - because a link >is usually possible via a neighbour. But if it becomes overwhelmingly widespread >than isolation actually takes effect. I do not see isolation as a trend. To me it is much simplier, knowledge is loosing its value in people's view. It is no more a shame to be uneducated (in all meanings of this word), stupid or even have no traces common sense. --- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de