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 08:48:55 +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> <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:23454 Date: 2014-11-17T08:48:55+00:00 List-Id: On 2014-11-17, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 08:11:03 +0000 (UTC), Stan Mills wrote: > >> On 2014-11-14, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >>> 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. > > Yes. But you cannot hire topnotch guys for every project. It is all about > engineering vs art. Engineers are average guys. The tools they handle must > fit an average guy. How otherwise could you predict the costs and quality > of a product? Yes you can hire topnotch guys for every project and you should because hiring the best guys is the best way to save money! See Mythical Man Month. He shows real numbers about how much more productive in terms of correct code the best guys are vs. not the best guys. This is what I have seen. I have seen guys that were paid 20 or 30% more than average save or make the company tens or hundreds of millions and the middle guys cost the company money. Why this isn't tattooed on every manager's head is hard to figure. Topnotch guys don't cost you anything, they pay for themselves and then some. The whole idea people costing you is what allows OO to make things worse. >> 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. > > No. Reusability is the only way to move forward. Complexity will continue > growing and there is no other means to fight it than per reuse. Again there are two forms of reuse. There is the dumb form where reuse enables people to use unqualified people to work over their heads, above their abilities. This is a mistake and costs people money. The form of reuse where it's only reuse in that it was done properly and can be used by qualified people who could have done all that work, only it was already done and they fully understand it so now they can save time and do other things. Certainly the transition from a more traditional approach of services and consumers to the current status of endless layers of middleware have made things more complex. Complexity growth is the problem and it's a symptom of bad design. Saying it can be fought is the wrong approach and it is the approach of OO, which is clearly losing the battel. Complexity has to be eliminated by changing the model from middleware uberalles to sensible ground-up designs that may not reuse existing code or use other class libraries, but can themselves offer reusable components to future projects. Stan