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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c459ff0adb576bc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-03 12:24:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-1-188.5800-14.telinco.NET!not-for-mail From: "Nick Roberts" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Refactoring and Ada Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 19:38:38 -0000 Message-ID: References: <3C5AB0B7.9D75D49A@grammatech.com> <5ee5b646.0202030548.5c471636@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-188.5800-14.telinco.net (212.1.148.188) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1012767843 42848824 212.1.148.188 (16 [25716]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19569 Date: 2002-02-03T19:38:38+00:00 List-Id: "Robert Dewar" wrote in message news:5ee5b646.0202030548.5c471636@posting.google.com... > "Nick Roberts" wrote in message news:... > > Paul, > > > > Ada has a co-standard called ASIS > > I think it is just possible that Paul may have heard > of ASIS before :-) :-) :-) I had no clue that Paul was so closely involved in ASIS. It was not an attempt at humour, and I apologise for any misdirection or offence that may have been given. I might recall the well-known phenomenon that Internet forms of communication lack many key 'cues' that we take for granted with other forms of communication, and this can lead to strange instances of confusion at times. On a Usenet newsgroup, the phrasing of a question can innocently (but misleadingly) make the reader think the asker is not familiar with the newsgroup's subject at all. > > I suspect that, in the case of Ada, refactoring in > > support of legacy code is unlikely in practice. This is > > largely because Ada 95 contains virtually no > > incompatibilties with Ada 83, and added no features so > > valuable that it would make it desirable to refactor Ada > > 83 code to use those features. > > A peculiar statement, since it represents such little > awareness of what actually goes on the field. In fact we > see many large users who are migrating large Ada 83 applications to > Ada 95, and I would guess exactly the > opposite that automated code transformations (I find the > term refactoring pompous :-) for, e.g. replacing certain > stylized uses of tasks in Ada 83 with protected types to > be potentially one of the most useful forms of this > technology. Certainly we have seen people write ASIS tools > to assist in transformations of this type. Robert, this comment seems to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the difference between refactoring and automated code transformations in general. I suspect that, actually, the task-to-protected-object transformations you mention are only the latter. -- Nick Roberts