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: 103376,1e3f2eac5c026e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-25 04:34:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 12:34:29 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo> <3FE991DD.5060301@noplace.com> <3FEA5C82.8050309@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1072355669 20777 134.91.1.34 (25 Dec 2003 12:34:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 12:34:29 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/800)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3802 Date: 2003-12-25T12:34:29+00:00 List-Id: Russ <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote: : Marin David Condic 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