Re: Ripple effect

[<adaworks@sbcglobal.net>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message 
news:upmdnWsSlagGjGPZnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@megapath.net...
>
> Huh? I often check for unused with clauses in my programs - by hand, and
> generally not because of compiler warnings (although we get those, too). I
> often try to eliminate things that are used only once. I guess I'd agree
> more if you said "rarely" as opposed to "ever".
>
I recall an early DoD system programmed in Ada where the
dependency chart looked like a hairball.   The reason was that
all the with clauses were in the package specifications.

Sad to say, the compiler did not alert anyone to the problem
the way some compilers of today will.

Everytime any unit had to be compiled, all the packages in the
with clauses also had to be recompiled.  OK.  This was a silly
design.   But Ada was new and it took time to catch on the
fact that with clauses, when pushed down to the package
body would eliminate a lot of compilation time.   Eventually,
when somone figured out the usefulness of subunits, those
dependencies were often pushed down to that level.

Much of the grumbling about Ada, in those early days, was
due to the ignorance about just how it worked.   As people
discovered how to use it correctly, the programs got better
and better.  However, a lot of programmer got discouraged
because they never learned this lessons. And Ada got a lot
of bad press, not because of its own faults, but because of
the ignorance of the people trying to use it.  Some of this
ignorance persists even today.

Richard Riehle