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: a07f3367d7,5add429c86f59001
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: ardjussi <jussi.santti@ard.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada vs Eiffel - Ada programmer approach
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <99dcd233-4977-4b67-b263-94149909fb95@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <405b5054-4c8f-4e16-9ea8-503a9b9f976e@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<4A19765C.608@obry.net>
 <8105b65f-4de9-4653-b43a-d55ee33f072d@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
	<4vCdnRo6At8-mIHXnZ2dnUVZ8n2dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <f4692ac2-9eee-4382-ba4e-b9d0a45e14e3@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.30.179.235
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1245135517 349 127.0.0.1 (16 Jun 2009 06:58:37
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:58:37 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.30.179.235;
	posting-account=MUOWiwoAAAC4qvHigjoGb4fc1Chok9yQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR
	1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6485
Date: 2009-06-15T23:58:36-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 4 kes=E4, 10:35, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne) <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr>
wrote:
> On 26 mai, 17:07, Tim Rowe <spamt...@tgrowe.plus.net> wrote:
>
> > I still think it's a brilliant idea, but suffers from *Design* by
> > Contract getting confused with *Programming* by Contract; not least
> > because "Design by Contract" is a trademark,
>
> Clearly an abuse. I will never understand how it is allowed to make a
> common expression a trade mark.

Is it a common expression? Was the word "contract" alone in use in
program design or programming before DbC was coined? For me the single
word was totally new for any meaning in computer programming at
something 1990. The phrase "design by contract" may have occasionally
appeared in sales of construction or even program design services, but
not as a technical term.

br Jussi

If GNAT is a trade mark, it is Ok, if
> Pepsi is a trade mark, it is Ok, but saying the expression "this
> common noun" or "doing a common-verb" is a trade mark... pffff....
>
> I even heard to say that "Happy Birthday" is a trade mark of some one.