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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-09 00:41:13 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?
Date: 9 Sep 2003 00:41:11 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0309082341.5f5fbf0c@posting.google.com>
References: <NGs6b.10770$Pa1.519789@read1.cgocable.net>
 <bebbba07.0309062059.6f225b06@posting.google.com>
 <FRz6b.2150$ej1.1502@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <bebbba07.0309070324.1fe7ef69@posting.google.com>
 <3F5B8084.5080705@attbi.com>
 <bebbba07.0309071345.44e1f9a2@posting.google.com>
 <e2e5731a.0309081035.137cbdb3@posting.google.com>
 <4097b.8256$w41.4532@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1063093272 25607 127.0.0.1 (9 Sep 2003 07:41:12
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Sep 2003 07:41:12 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42306
Date: 2003-09-09T07:41:12+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<4097b.8256$w41.4532@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> Alexander Kopilovitch wrote:
> > Actually he did not say that much
> 
> Right. I just meant that in Java you do not entirely lose the
> ability to separate specification from implementation, if you
> approach the design in the right way.

Oh, so you don't *entirely* lose the ability to separate specification
from implementation. Approximately what percentage do you lose?

Also, that seems like a slight retreat from your earlier statement:

"Write an interface, and now you have a specification for how a
component may be invoked, without any code implementing such a
component. Write the code which conforms to the interface, and you're
done. The compiler makes sure that if an interface is expected, it is
supplied, and if it's to be implemented, nothing is missing."

"That's your separately compilable specification and implementation.
What about this fails to work?"

Don't mind me. I'm just a clueless aerospace engineer trying to figure
out which end is up.