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: 103376,158ce2376534c35d X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!138.195.8.3.MISMATCH!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!jacob-sparre.dk!ada-dk.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Derived private interface Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:52:13 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <27656578-65aa-48b9-9f89-4ebd4e0cb02a@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> <0fe3b0f8-c064-444d-899d-640e891b58c3@w4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <128d8eb5-1cc6-47e3-a09b-b53a5ef289ce@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <4e141501$0$6629$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <4b2728fc-6127-45d8-a314-9fc491701c26@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <82vcve4bqx.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <4e15b223$0$6541$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <4a4f185d-5268-4d73-a5df-8149bd117e0f@h9g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> <1bs0xoar40rx.6yb23bgkfrew.dlg@40tude.net> <1luxw3i4h9z8e$.7a8ee3cf99u2.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1313124738 5255 69.95.181.76 (12 Aug 2011 04:52:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 04:52:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20545 Date: 2011-08-11T23:52:13-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:1luxw3i4h9z8e$.7a8ee3cf99u2.dlg@40tude.net... > On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:56:00 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > >> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message >> news:1bs0xoar40rx.6yb23bgkfrew.dlg@40tude.net... > >>> In reality >>> there are many dispatching calls and many class-wide operations (for >>> which >>> there is no typed procedural equivalent). >> >> Reality? The reality is in the web server interface I was describing >> there >> was only one such point of dispatch, and only a single interface to >> dispatch >> to. It's clearly a special case, but one that is pretty common in the >> systems I've worked on. > > The problem is that starting a project without OO, you have to gamble on > whether this indeed is a special case and will remain special. > > This is called fragile design. No, this is called "agile development"! There is no circumstance where a designer can possibly predict all possible ways their project is going to evolve. It's silly to try. It doesn't matter how you design your interfaces -- you're going to have to change them at some point. And I've never seen any difference in the amount of work in a OOP design. If anything, the OOP designs are harder to modify -- adding a new interface to the ARM formatter or the Claw Builder takes a long time and requires inserting a lot of similar code in a number of packages. I've rarely seen that sort of behavior with a purely procedural design (probably because ad-hoc sharing of code is much easier in a procedural design). I could imagine that there could exist some extremely fancy tools for creating the common structures of all of those "implementations" of the new interfaces automatically -- but I'm not aware of any such thing for Ada -- and in any case, I wouldn't have one (I only use Janus/Ada tools for [virtually all] programming here; have to do so in order to figure out what needs to be improved). Randy.