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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:26:02 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <10d9w.55626$8w1.22302@fx12.iad> <150er0b62wsh3$.1xabmp81w5kdw.dlg@40tude.net> <2Oj9w.86043$uw3.37688@fx10.iad> <20141115082255.58da7f92@atmarama.ddns.net> <20141115115116.06fdf752@atmarama.ddns.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: wfRpp7ltpEWhI2na6kgpfA.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23367 Date: 2014-11-15T12:26:02+01:00 List-Id: On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:51:16 +0100, Gour wrote: > On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:57:14 +0100 > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: > >> "From a scientific point of view all further attention paid to Ada is >> a waste of effort." ¡V Edsger Dijkstra > > Well, considering that (for me) Ada is fine language for software > *engineerng* (and not CS), I have no problem accepting both > quotes as relevant. Ignoring absurdity of the idea that engineering could exist without an underlying scientific discipline, if your interpretation of Dijkstra were that Ada is bad science and [maybe, he never said so] good engineering, then why you interpret his quote about OO differently? Maybe this one would go better: "At one of his visits, Andrei asked my opinion about Ada. I told him that Ada was such a mess that I shuddered at the thought that Western security would depend on it and that I would feel much safer if the Red Army were to adopt it as well. Andrei smiled and gave the now famous answer "Don't worry...."." ¡V Edsger Dijkstra Is it about "Red Army science"? And note, this is 1989, Ada 83. If he meant Ada bad, that was not because of OO! Wouldn't it be simpler just to accept that Dijkstra as ingenious he certainly was, regardless his enormous contribution to software engineering principles, e.g. "correct by construction", didn't understand software engineering well? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de