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!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!nuzba.szn.dk!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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:59:54 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <27656578-65aa-48b9-9f89-4ebd4e0cb02a@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> <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> <970ef0a5-da4b-4463-b411-aa3ef116fad1@f7g2000vba.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1313186397 6570 69.95.181.76 (12 Aug 2011 21:59:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:59:57 +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:20586 Date: 2011-08-12T16:59:54-05:00 List-Id: "Maciej Sobczak" wrote in message news:970ef0a5-da4b-4463-b411-aa3ef116fad1@f7g2000vba.googlegroups.com... On Aug 12, 6:43 am, "Randy Brukardt" wrote: >> >I see - but isn't it a special case? >> >> Yes, in today's world, safety and security are surely a special case -- >> hardly anyone seems to care, and thus they get PWNed all the time. >> >> Yes, of course there are ways to enforce safety and security in a dynamic >> loading environment, > >Never in my posts I have mentioned dynamic loading of anything (in >fact, I have always stressed that the whole program can be compiled >and linked statically) and I think that your focus on safety and >security in this discussion is artificial. Your previous message had expounded on the advantages of run-time management of modules. I had assumed that you suddenly were talking about dynamic module management, because I had already shown (twice in fact) that there was no advantage in this system to run-time management (or any other OOP characteristics) in terms of effort to add new interfaces. Perhaps you've missed a critical point: static binding should always be strongly preferred to any sort of run-time management, because it is many times easier to analyze statically (both by tools and by the programmer), it's easier to debug (because the run-time management doesn't interfere with determining what the system is actually doing), and it typically performs better (because compilers can do better optimizations, although this effect is usually marginal and is far below the importance of the first two). These are critical to program maintenance, especially when having to understand existing code (even code you wrote when you come back to it 10 years later). There has to be a strong reason for using dynamic module management: (1) The interface is complex and interrelated, so that dynamic dispatching actually buys something beyond confusion (for instance, the "action routines" of Claw for handling events); (2) Dynamic loading/reconfiguration of capabilities has to be supported; (3) Following OOP religion even when it demonstratably doesn't help is more important than the benefits of a fully static design (a so-called "object-based design"). I'd previously shown repeatedly that (1) did not apply to the web server problem (at least with the design we selected); thus I had assumed that you'd veered off into discussing (2) -- because otherwise you are simply following (3) and there is no point in discussing anything with a religious fanatic (of any stripe) -- they don't really care about facts. So at this point it is clear that we really have nothing to talk about. Sorry. Randy.