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: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-26 10:22:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: 26 Sep 2003 10:22:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <6jm2nv86sjlodss01sfvikv38jbilkusl7@4ax.com> <0465nv0eg57udvk6sp4jv8jaigt7dm5nm5@4ax.com> <8at7nvg0psj4pqohp2afnkmp56k4lja4jj@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.33.246.182 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1064596950 7933 127.0.0.1 (26 Sep 2003 17:22:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Sep 2003 17:22:30 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42999 Date: 2003-09-26T17:22:30+00:00 List-Id: 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