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: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:30:50 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com> <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com> <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com> <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <10d9w.55626$8w1.22302@fx12.iad> <150er0b62wsh3$.1xabmp81w5kdw.dlg@40tude.net> <2Oj9w.86043$uw3.37688@fx10.iad> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: p9a8jKAGz0rpkSSbWxF1gQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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:23281 Date: 2014-11-14T11:30:50+01:00 List-Id: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:19:04 -0800, Hubert wrote: >> Hmm, actually OOD and OOP require more upfront design than traditional >> procedural approach. Ad-hoch subprograms are much easier and quicker stuff >> than ad-hoc type + subprograms (=class) with thinking about possible >> inheritance etc. > > That maybe the theory, but what I have experienced is that it is > immensely easy to just start writing code and have great success with > it. In fact it is much easier than writing subprograms and modules etc. > That is the stuff that requires planning. I don't see how this could be true. One problem with such statements is that people compare incomparable things or consider usage of ready components as if it were the program of their own. If you carefully analyse any of these activities under procedural vs. OO approach you will find that: 1. Reuse is in order of magnitude easier and safer when with OO. 2. Writing your own new code requires more upfront thinking and writing but is greatly safer in the long run. Ergo, OO is good for software engineering, which should surprise nobody, because in essence OO, leaving OOA/D religion aside, is nothing but an improved type system. > Objects just "flow from the brain into the computer". But later they are > going to bite you and that is my criticism. That it seems so easy and > natural in the beginning which gives the programmer a false sense of > security. This is a logical fallacy. Compare: Ada gives the programmer a false sense of security, therefore we must stick to ANSI C. OO is as insecure as the OOPL allows it to be. E.g. Ada requires overriding the primitive operations returning tagged results. That is secure. Ada does not require either "overriding" or "not overriding" to appear. That is insecure. So? > Of course I know that UML is intended to be used in the planning > process, but it is so overcomplicated that many people will never use > it. I know I don't (except timing diagrams which are pretty handy when > it comes to multi threading programs). Modeling is a part of OOA/D, not OOP. I am very sceptical about OOA/D. Regarding modeling it is IMO a plain wrong approach to software engineering. But again, that is not OOP. You can do OOP without modeling as well as modeling without OOP or even without having an OOPL. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de