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 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 08:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <22a3816a-4e89-48f0-a126-dce581781beb@googlegroups.com> <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com> <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com> <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <10d9w.55626$8w1.22302@fx12.iad> <150er0b62wsh3$.1xabmp81w5kdw.dlg@40tude.net> <2Oj9w.86043$uw3.37688@fx10.iad> NNTP-Posting-Host: CZys4dQT/QdgzTCHwe4TXA.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:23447 Date: 2014-11-17T08:11:03+00:00 List-Id: On 2014-11-14, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:19:04 -0800, Hubert wrote: > >>> 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 maybe the theory, but what I have experienced is that it is >> immensely easy to just start writing code and have great success with >> it. In fact it is much easier than writing subprograms and modules etc. >> That is the stuff that requires planning. Yes, this is part of the problem. OO appears to make productivity better but it comes with costs that are apparently too high like people being unable to troubleshoot large applications because they used stuff without understanding it. > I don't see how this could be true. One problem with such statements is > that people compare incomparable things or consider usage of ready > components as if it were the program of their own. If you carefully analyse > any of these activities under procedural vs. OO approach you will find > that: > > 1. Reuse is in order of magnitude easier and safer when with OO. That's when it's done properly and qualified people write the objects *and* qualified people deploy the objects. The way OO is used now is as a crutch to allow labor-quality "coders" work over their heads. This is dangerous. Just because the top scientists discover cures for terrible diseases doesn't mean the guy who takes out the trash in your office building is qualified to be a doctor just by filling a syringe with the stuff the scientists developed. > 2. Writing your own new code requires more upfront thinking and writing but > is greatly safer in the long run. True. Now what about the benefits of reusability? Can we conclude software reusability is only good locally when the guy reuses his own good code, but unqualified people using other people's code is harmful? I think so. > Ergo, OO is good for software engineering, which should surprise nobody, > because in essence OO, leaving OOA/D religion aside, is nothing but an > improved type system. Agreed! But it comes with a very negative side effect. See above. > This is a logical fallacy. Compare: Ada gives the programmer a false sense > of security, therefore we must stick to ANSI C. Haha. I can only respond to this by saying yeah that's pretty much what happens ;-) Stan