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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx24.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Hubert User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? References: <87fvdr2vdv.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <54609F34.4080201@spam.spam> <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com> <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad> <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com> <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com> <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com> <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <10d9w.55626$8w1.22302@fx12.iad> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 141113-1, 11/13/2014), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Message-ID: <_lg9w.867256$Y4.791747@fx24.iad> X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 05:24:10 UTC Organization: http://www.NewsDemon.com Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:24:20 -0800 X-Received-Bytes: 3921 X-Received-Body-CRC: 1964185453 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23261 Date: 2014-11-13T21:24:20-08:00 List-Id: > Perhaps you're confusing agile with test-driven development (TDD) and other > such nonsense? Luckily, they don't have much to do with each other (even if > they are often used together). TDD, of course is a way to guarentee the > lowest quality software that still "works" (for some definition of "works"). > It means the software will certainly break as soon as someone thinks of a > new way to use it, which is silly (because users are clever and will > invitably come up with unanticipated ways to use anything) and dangerous > (because the criminals will find those holes and abuse them). > > Randy. > > I don't know, I dont really follow the latest software development fads that much, I have my own ways, but I also realize that my technique is flawed because the lure of the "easy to make object" always lures me into doing things step by step, that is not to worry about what's down the road as long as I'm working on something that must come earlier and then I realize that what comes later in the process has requirements that were not considered in the early stages and I have to go back and change what I did before. I think that is pretty much "agile" development. I test a lot though, usually go through new code with the debugger line by line, so my programs basically run every step I take, it's just that later I discover I missed some steps or took the wrong path. I'm working in C++ at the moment, mind you, so that language might encourage the developer to use bad techniques. When I did a small Ada project I deliberately took the opportunity to work differently and the result was much more satisfying. I am thinking more along the line of the Waterfall model, however with modern designtools which weren't available in the 80s. Diagrams were mostly made by hand in those days and changing them was a pain in the butt, today that is much easier with tools like Visio or other graphical editors. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com