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 08:36:49 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <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> <1azsoc77wjhmi$.1grmnnlq033tz.dlg@40tude.net> <5yzci4a8snfg.1dfsqjyvneeym$.dlg@40tude.net> 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:23452 Date: 2014-11-17T08:36:49+00:00 List-Id: On 2014-11-14, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:38:17 +0000 (UTC), Stan Mills wrote: > >> On 2014-11-14, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:02:49 +0000 (UTC), Stan Mills wrote: >>> >>>> On 2014-11-14, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:36:06 -0800, Hubert wrote: >>>>> >> Oh, I beg to differ. Sun certainly dumbed down programming when they >> designed Java. It's about making unqualified people "productive" and the >> best way to do that is for qualified people to write as much code as >> possible for unqualified people to use. The primary feature of OO in >> practice is the huge set of class libraries to reduce the amount of future >> coding as much as possible to simple cut and paste of existing bad code. > > Well, and the alternative would be? To re-implement everything each time? No, the alternative is if the qualified people who were involved in engineering the class libraries actually designed coded and maintained the whole application using those class libraries. Barring that, using qualified people would be a good start. > Actually, the maturity of an engineering discipline is measured by the > level of reuse of standardised solutions and components. That works for engineering but large software systems are not successful when built entirely or even in major part with foreign components. Large software systems may be engineering, but they are not manufacturing. And engineers still have standards and best practices and those are well enough known. In the software world all we have is .... > >> The >> only thing a regular programmer can't write in Java or C++ today is >> something that doesn't already have a class library to do it for him. > > Maybe. In this context, can the regular programmer do anything better with > any of competing paradigms: > > 1. Procedural Bad programmers are exposed more quickly by procedural methodology more than OO. They can't deliver stuff that works, on time, so you fire them. > 2. Functional Not sure it has any use in most commerce and industry. > 3. Relational What? ;-) > > I bet, that anybody is far better off with OO than with any from the >above. I don't agree and the problem is not limited to OO. It's just magnitudes worse with OO because all the "hard" stuff is done by the other guy. This allows people to work over their heads and in my experience that is never ever a good thing. The main thing OO hides is unqualified programmers. Not that OO couldn't be used well. Just that it isn't. The costs turned out to be much higher than the benefits. Then again when 99.9% of all code is web and phone apps maybe we're wasting our time worrying about it. >>> On the contrary, OO, specifically the concepts of inheritance and >>> instances, addresses software-reuse, which is exactly the opposite to the >>> cut and paste approach. >> >> That's the theory. But in practice, having all the hard stuff written >> already just promotes cutting and pasting of a different color. The code >> that *uses* those classes is normally not reusable. That's what is cutting >> and pasting. It's been shoved down a level or two. > > Maybe. But, again, what would be better? Using qualified people end to end. Then the problem goes away. > But this is not an OO problem. The problem is with CS as a whole and with > missing software market. Yes but I think OO masks the problem to a great extent and that is what I have been trying to say. > You need two things for having a decent > engineering discipline, that is a sound science (CS is trash) and a working > economical stimulus rewarding quality products and punishing swindlers (SW > market is ruined). Agreed! Stan