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: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/07/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 258079517 References: Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 21 Jul 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote: > In article donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) writes: > > I agree for Ada. I don't agree for Eiffel which gives you a high > > level of confidence that you can reuse with impunity. Reusing > > certain modules may happen to be nonsensical but that's a design > > issue - not a reuse issue - and irrelevant to this argument. > > Come on Don, this problem is in Eiffel as well - it just doesn't offer > any support to fix it. You have to punt out to something like LACE > which is just a hack. A hack that works, but a hack nonetheless. I am still amazed at this entire module class unification thing, but I think it is noteworthy that many languages which started their lives without module systems acquired them, for example Perl, C++, Lisp, ML dialects, etc. Sather, which began as an Eiffel knock off, will eventually get one I've been told. Even Eiffel has one, it's just not standardized. I think I can live with a language without an object system, but I'd have a much harder time living without modules distinct from types. -- Brian