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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.107.6.141 with SMTP id f13mr18359804ioi.106.1512564884788; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 04:54:44 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.85.67 with SMTP id h3mr964353oti.10.1512564884706; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 04:54:44 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!193no2559455itr.0!news-out.google.com!s63ni5721itb.0!nntp.google.com!193no2559454itr.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 04:54:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.71.208.22; posting-account=QF6XPQoAAABce2NyPxxDAaKdAkN6RgAf NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.71.208.22 References: <889a3aed-4e6b-49c8-8c1c-6f1478e8e077@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Full view of a private partial view cannot be a subtype From: Jere Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 12:54:44 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Received-Body-CRC: 707402263 X-Received-Bytes: 3057 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49395 Date: 2017-12-06T04:54:44-08:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 1:40:40 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > > But your argument is about ease of writing, with isn't going to convince anyone > who likes Ada. Ada explicitly states in the ARM Introduction that it's for code > that's easy to read, not easy to write. The fact that you type more with > composition is not an argument against it. No, I wasn't making an argument vs ease of writing. I was saying that, for me, there are cases where composition is harder to read. > > > I respect yall's view on this, but in either case it is still a subjective > > matter. There are a variety of people out there who all view things very > > differently. > > I disagree. There are a set of S/W-engineering principles that help guide the > S/W engineer to create S/W that is simple, correct, and easy to read. Every > real-world use of type extension that I've seen has violated the principle of > locality--that's inherent in the nature of type extension. Thus it is > objectively more complex and harder to read than S/W that violates none of the > principles. > I don't think we will ever agree on this topic, because, having grown up as someone with trouble reading, I had to find alternate methods to parse through what I saw. It's easy to get overwhelmed when there is so much to read/go through. What's readable to you isn't necessarily readable to me. Hopefully we can just agree to disagree.