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-Thread: 103376,aea4cc77526f5e4a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!oleane.net!oleane!hunter.axlog.fr!nobody From: Jean-Pierre Rosen Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Separate Compilation in Programming Languages Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:53:44 +0100 Organization: Adalog Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: mailhost.axlog.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: s1.news.oleane.net 1203924865 26087 195.25.228.57 (25 Feb 2008 07:34:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@oleane.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:34:25 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) In-Reply-To: Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20049 Date: 2008-02-25T08:53:44+01:00 List-Id: adaworks@sbcglobal.net a �crit : > What > is your view of Ada-style separate compilation when compared to that in other > languages? > Do you find it useful in your own practice? I think that the most useful feature is separate compilation of specs and bodies. When designing a module (a body), you can design the specifications of the modules that you will need to implement it (what I call an abstraction layer). Then you can compile your body against these specifications, and make sure you specs serve the intended purpose /before/ any implementation effort. You can even provide body stubs, and prototype your abstraction layer. With Ada's separate compilation features, you do not only design top-down, you can also code top-down. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr