Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?

[aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch)]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> >> ... the language design assumtions do not influence the
> >> software design approach in a direct way.
> >
> >In practice there are always expectations about future implementation opportunities
> >and problems, and those expectations usually influence design substantially.
>
> Those are not related to the language design.

Sounds strange - implementation opportunities (or expectations about
them)
are not related to the language design?

> >But what is more significant, if you aren't familiar with the problem domain,
> >then programming (or software engineering) terminology necessarily becomes your
> >internal design language; general notions (like List, Queue, etc.) usually
> >aren't enough, and for the rest part of the design you will use either forms
> >from a programming language or their imprecise glimpses.
>
> Right, but mostly, because the problem domain issues are very often
> minor comparing with the software design issues.

I think that this impression is caused exactly by the effect I just
mentioned:
when our (programmers) knowledge about problem domain is only partial
and/or
vague, we naturally try to compensate that at the software design
level (for
example, providing much more flexibility that might be needed if we
knew the
problem domain better).

> >> I do not see why it should
> >> be more difficult to make incomplete products in Ada.
> >
> >Because it takes much more expertise in the language for making useful imprecise
> >glimpses of the language's forms in Ada than in C++. Just becase Ada was designed
> >primarily for use in environments where competence in the problem domain can
> >be assumed (and therefore those things should no be needed), while C++ inherits
> >all its basic OO machinery from universal modelling language (Simula-67).
>
> It is a strange statement. You are comparing design purposes with
> heritage.

But this was the way C++ was originally designed - it more or less
honestly
inherited all its object machinery from Simula-67 (dropping
coroutines). So,
those (original) object features in fact weren't designed for C++,
they were
designed for Simula-67.

> It is apples and oranges.

Do you really think that apples and oranges never can (or should) be
compared? -:)

> I do not see how C++ OO constructs
> make designing incomplete products easier than Ada OO constructs.

For me it is quite obvious. Take, for example, that multiple
inheritance. In
C++ you have it, and therefore you can simply say: "I inherit
Democracy from
Population and Constitution", retaining the details for vague future
(next
phase of design - detailed design, which possibly will never happen).
You can't
say that in Ada - here you'll be forced to give some kind of
preference either
to Population or to Constitution. And if you aren't aware about
relations
between the Population and Constitution, you naturally will feel Ada
less
convenient in the case, because she pushes you to say something about
the
things you don't know... while C++ permits you to be silent about
them.

> >> >> Half-baked design is a result of half-baked programmes and uneducated
> >> >> managers.
> >> >
> >> >I think, no. It is most often a result of substantially incomplete problem
> >> >statement and incompetence (of the team) in problem domain.
> >>
> >> These are the consequences.
> >
> >Sometimes, but far from always. Quite often people that are generally educated
> >and sufficiently competent in some problem domain(s) are throwed to other problem
> >domains (in which they are incompetent) without any preliminary training. And
> >those people will have no other choice but to start with some vague model.
>
> To be competent, largely *implies* to know the limits of oneself
> competence. This is the key point.

The problem here is that the configuration space of skills/competence
is not
so plain, it is not restricted to classical scientific and technical
domains.
So, one easily can consider his competence limited just because it is
concentrated
at some *level*, and not in some real world problem domain.

> An incompetent manager is a universally one.

He may think otherwise - he may be well aware of his level. He may
think that
he can manage a group of, say, 50-100 people, but, perhaps, not 1000.
So, his
competence is quite limited in his view.

After all, methematicians also usually do not restrict their
competence to some
problem domains as far as it pertains to square equations -:) .


> Come on, do you really believe that cheap shows might influence
> intellectuals?

Certainly yes - they influence them in 2 steps: at the first step
those
intellectuals believe that those shows influence masses, and at the
second step
they build their conclusions on the belief created at the first step.

But I also think that those shows weren't cheap. Probably you meant
low quantity
of design features and low structural complexity of those shows, but
these
aren't most important criteria for cost estimates. It is not simple
and not
cheap to organize such shows without too much obvious (for spectators)
blunders.
If you think otherwise then certainly you have no experience in this
area...
probably you even did not try to control a squad of 30 soldiers (or
forgot that -:) .

> They ain't so stupid. They wished and are wishing to
> use circumstances (like Stalin or Saddam) in their own purposes. They
> consider these circumstances as a proof of their understanding of the
> world, and in the end start to enjoy them.

Opportunists were, are, and will be at all levels of education, And
two-step
opportunists aren't particularly interesting. And their fraction isn't
much
differ from fraction of opportunists of all flavors at other levels of
education.

> knowledge is loosing its value in people's view.

People, quite understandably, failed to find much value in Dark Matter
(which
is too dark and too far) and in intermediate boson (which is too
intermediate),
They patiently waited for decades for miracles or at least
explanations, but
finally quit. Well, I mean Western people (in China, India and some
other places
the situation is entirely different, in these places many people still
consider
education as precious aid for personal survival).



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia