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 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Design By Contract Date: 1997/08/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268823926 Distribution: world References: <3403940F.4154@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: > - Strict enforcement of encapsulation while maximising visibility. Eiffel > offers a look-but-don't-touch view of object attributes. In Ada83, > an attribute and its type has to be declared in the visible interface in > order for clients to see it's structure but then they can also update it > directly. If you declare its type as private, clients can't update it > directly but neither can they see its structure. Isn't that exactly the point? Why should a client be able to see the actual structure, aka implementation???? > - Simplicity which enables developers to focus on designing rather than > trying to remember language rules. A simplistic macroscopic comparison > of Eiffel and Ada based on the number of validity rules suggests that > Eiffel is about 50 times simpler than Ada. IMO, this is obviously one of those "yes it is, no it isn't" sort of things. It would be very difficult to get a _consistent_ objective metric for this. /Jon -- Jon Anthony OMI, Belmont, MA 02178, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari