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: 103376,9e7db243dfa070d7
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.tornevall.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Do people who use Ada also use ocaml or F#?
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:02:21 -0700
Organization: TornevallNET - http://news.tornevall.net
Message-ID: <iakbd7$8pc$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
References: 
 <b17dc7a8-7f8e-46b7-942c-b08ba83ce8fa@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <gt9eaeq2y4pc$.11t5wghh3e8jh$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <iafhfu$4kh$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <1mjd3udlxgzp3$.1abzmwnslu9ym$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <iai8uh$qnl$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <1e1y89ly171$.91bu2wu1e2rk$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d584b9a12d1c865e5dde11b062f488cb
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: 850b38079bc0cb55ff995cd763ccc953
X-Complaints-To: abuse@tornevall.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.0.10
X-Complaints-Language: Spoken language is english or swedish - NOT ITALIAN,
 FRENCH, GERMAN OR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE!
In-Reply-To: <1e1y89ly171$.91bu2wu1e2rk$.dlg@40tude.net>
X-UserIDNumber: 1738
X-Validate-Post: 
 http://news.tornevall.net/validate.php?trace=850b38079bc0cb55ff995cd763ccc953
X-Complaints-Italiano: Non abbiamo padronanza della lingua italiana - se
 mandate una email scrivete solo in Inglese, grazie
X-Posting-User: 0243687135df8c4b260dd4a9a93c79bd
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16026
Date: 2010-10-31T11:02:21-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 10/31/2010 12:38 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
> Programming by extension focuses software design on reuse. Yes, it eases
> writing, just because reuse reduces the amount of code. However it also
> requires more upfront design, considered bad by some.

Funny, I've been writing and re-using reusable software for decades, and don't 
use programming by extension. Nor have I had any problem focusing on designing 
before coding.

> As for reading, I completely disagree. There is nothing more unreadable
> than cut'n'pasted code, which is the only alternative to reuse. And by the
> way, generics is the least readable Ada feature.

Even with well designed programming-by-extension code, I find it much harder to 
read than programming-by-composition code.

As said above, there most certainly is an alternative to programming by 
extension and to cut-and-paste for reuse.

I find generics far more readable than programming by extension.

And I'm well aware we disagree, and are unlikely ever to agree, which is why I 
think this (sub-)discussion should end here.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Why, the Mayflower was full of Fireflies, and a few
horseflies, too. The Fireflies were on the upper deck,
and the horseflies were on the Fireflies."
Duck Soup
95