Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference)

[Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>]

Russ <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote:
: Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:<3FEA5C82.8050309@noplace.com>...
:> The cost would *not* be near zero.
 [explained]

: Whining like that over the smallest change makes really me wonder
: about the future of Ada. If such a tiny change is so monumental, how
: the hell are you guys going to handle significant changes?

I don't think, after reading what Robert Duff, Robert Eachus, and
Marin Condic have written, that we can say this is small/tiny,
that is big. On what basis? Because something _looks_ tiny to us
non-compiler writers?

On another account, we have had a discussion recently which you might
remember that there is a measure of software quality that uses the
number of units with'd. That number should not be high.
To me then this means that it is *much* more important to look
at how software is organized, and do this by looking at what is
with'd and what is use'd, and keeping that amount of program
text low by design, not by compressed syntax.
So I don't agree that it is junk in the frontyard because seen from
the perspective of unit dependence and unit use the verbosity looks
like a Good Thing to me.
So on the contrary, used properly, having the verbose solution
that Ada currently has might be an advantage.

: I wonder if soldiers whine like that when they are imposed upon to
: keep their barracks clean?

Certainly a clean place can be vitally important, from a medical
perspective. Still, I don't think this is a proper analogy.
With and use ...; instead of with ...; use ...; does not imply
clean software.
And removing dust and vermin is not the same thing as throwing
dust and vermin together into the same dust bin ;-)

If you allow a civilian to guess (and hope) that weapon control systems
(and other systems controlling dangerous devices) should be
expressively and unambigously labelled, foolproof, and possibly
*looking* redundant in order to avoid deadly explosive aberrations,
why not have character redundancy in the area of connecting software
modules by with; and use; the way it is done now?

-- Georg