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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: ffc1e,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidffc1e,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,5da92b52f6784b63 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: milkweed@plainfield.bypass.com (Anders Pytte) Subject: Re: Papers on the Ariane-5 crash and Design by Contract Date: 1997/03/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 229184969 References: Organization: Milkweed Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.programming.threads,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , kennel@nospam.lyapunov.ucsd.edu wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 20:18:12 -0500, Anders Pytte wrote: > : > :I guess i made a dangerous generalization there. I've been instinctively > :appliying programming-by-contract tecniques for the 15 years i've been > :programming professionally - imperfectly, ofcourse. I've gathered and > :developed tools and techniques slowly along the way, and am still > :learning. > > This is exactly why "programming by contract" *technology* is so valuable, > because it enforces, abets, and promotes good behavior and hard-earned > wisdom to many more people, just as good register allocation technology > in compilers once rendered the assembly language prowess of above-the-norm > programmers to the masses. > > The C++ design attitude is "don't even try to enforce any style at all" > which I don't like. If you're particularly postmodernist you might > assert that such a 'nonstyle' is as much a style in empirical reality > as any other. > > IMHO, it really is true that "policy and mechanism" is better than "mechanism > not policy" if such policy were thoughfully crafted via wisdom, insight and > experience. > > "There is no 'it would be possible to implement it in a library'. > There is only do or not do." :-) > > -- > Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD/ > Don't blame me, I voted for Emperor Mollari. I don't agree with "C++ design attitude is don't even try to enforce any style at all". That is not even close to the case with any C++ programmers that I know, nor any of the C++ libraries whose sources I have seen. I think that statement more accurately reflects the snobbishness of persons who have the luxury of programming with a language which I acknowledge is more advanced. Perhaps you are in academics (not meant as an insult ;-). In fact, there is nothing essential to Eiffel that I am aware of that was not practiced by good engineers years before Eiffel was concieved, with great effort and inspite of difficulties imposed by language (like non-inheritence of pre- and post-conditions). Otherwise i agree with everything you said. Anders. -- Anders Pytte Milkweed Software RR 1, Box 227 Voice: (802) 472-5142 Cabot VT 05647 Internet: milkweed@plainfield.bypass.com