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: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Separation of IF and Imp: process issue? Date: 1997/09/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271984344 Distribution: world References: <5v1gua$fkk@newshub.atmnet.net> <5v2k2n$1cfu$2@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> <5v4095$h62@newshub.atmnet.net> <5v4g00$pjr@wdl1.wdl.lmco.com> Organization: PSINet Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Patrick says > > < programmer. This advantage still exists.>> > > In the Ada world, we do not pay much attention to such arguments, since > we favor readability over writability in an absolute manner. I realize this > is an unusual language design strategy, but it is appropriate for dealing > with maintainabvility in very large systems. Not to mention it is just plain wrong. You can put them in the same file - how is there less typing? /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