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=unavailable 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: Stan Mills <smills87@mills.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:02:49 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <m44gfo$1kb$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <DA%7w.753721$Y4.288171@fx24.iad>
 <35f01472-3510-4f67-8765-006fa8591c35@googlegroups.com>
 <9tc8w.73007$ZT5.37595@fx07.iad>
 <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com>
 <mqw8w.739469$w82.82975@fx21.iad>
 <cd91630f-d78d-4eab-830c-f71005e93fc0@googlegroups.com>
 <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com>
 <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com>
 <Jwy8w.500685$Ub6.487517@fx20.iad>
 <d4b8f45d-e327-4d78-a0d6-838aba063e4d@googlegroups.com>
 <lyoascltws.fsf@pushface.org> <YYE8w.620042$Lj7.284655@fx22.iad>
 <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <zTF8w.509165$No4.167804@fx19.iad>
 <fca06fd0-6970-46a5-95b9-6b6317a37f7c@googlegroups.com>
 <aSG8w.567817$Q61.266688@fx13.iad> <m40odq$tdv$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <DbU8w.703256$Fo3.563225@fx09.iad> <m439g4$bq9$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <m43c6o$1v1$1@dont-email.me> <10d9w.55626$8w1.22302@fx12.iad>
 <150er0b62wsh3$.1xabmp81w5kdw.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: /73E1exqNyif7fBAZXl+/w.user.speranza.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23276
Date: 2014-11-14T09:02:49+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2014-11-14, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:36:06 -0800, Hubert wrote:
>
>> That is a point that I have been contemplating for a while now but in 
>> conjunction with Object Oriented Programming. When I look back at my 
>> career I realize that I became lazier and lazier in terms of designing 
>> before programming with the advent of OOP. I think OOP is designed to to 
>> just that: 
>
> 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's if you are responsible for the whole thing or care about doing it properly.

The way OO is used today all the real work is expected to have already been
done by the class library writers and the "coder" just cuts and pastes his
way to the end of the program. Next!

> In fact Ada was always OO, as you could define new types and provide
> operations for these types in Ada 83. It even had some form of inheritance
> in the form of type cloning (type X is new Integer).
>
> Some used to say that Ada 83 was object-based, but not fully
> object-oriented.

True and it was not even the first to do so. OO is supposed to be about a
way to solve problems, not about using somebody else's libraries to avoid
writing any code. But thanks to Java and lately C++ it has degenerated
considerably from the former into the latter.

Stan Mills