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!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Running a preprocessor from GPS?
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 19:35:24 -0700
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net;
 news.eternal-september.org
Message-ID: <mpmjud$rtf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <e610ca1e-4df6-4fbb-b3a1-ac35694d9072@googlegroups.com>
 <mpdts2$72e$3@dont-email.me>
 <4cb32c40-f659-490d-bbb6-73585fc069e8@googlegroups.com>
 <mpfm1b$bif$5@dont-email.me> <mpgcma$hup$1@dont-email.me>
 <7e653a88-e690-431a-9df9-3fc691466e08@googlegroups.com>
 <lyzj2bo4pi.fsf@pushface.org>
 <25e8deb9-a967-4856-97cb-4257e1ba7fa4@googlegroups.com>
 <lyoairo1ao.fsf@pushface.org>
 <a7e26857-2ab6-4cc3-a9ef-f39d2f71a826@googlegroups.com>
 <d23pppF8puoU1@mid.individual.net>
 <84debe67-b26c-40c6-93ae-a2dec28f081b@googlegroups.com>
 <mpj0nq$6fc$1@dont-email.me>
 <c4d1c74a-dd8e-4e15-b73f-aa20cc398ce8@googlegroups.com>
 <mpji1s$8la$1@dont-email.me>
 <83abe7a5-69d6-4443-a976-f3b3fbed892a@googlegroups.com>
 <mpjmjk$km6$1@dont-email.me>
 <506db345-e114-4256-b36c-6f9d99431f77@googlegroups.com>
 <mpkbrv$7e5$1@dont-email.me>
 <a3e37b6c-f965-4291-91a9-00c1e4f12a02@googlegroups.com>
 <mplqg5$614$1@dont-email.me>
 <032d6485-08fc-4b5a-8f3e-1d91b1a2f757@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 02:33:51 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="ee44d3db9c41f5ad88d7e8e8f0268f05";
	logging-data="28591"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DIAPZOYCla1UG4rQrnTSAkSLhKTx4j3o="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.1.0
In-Reply-To: <032d6485-08fc-4b5a-8f3e-1d91b1a2f757@googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TU4EjhAgpaMolJODQtmQtq6mWQQ=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:27340
Date: 2015-08-02T19:35:24-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 08/02/2015 02:37 PM, EGarrulo wrote:
> 
> And would that decrease complexity, or just move it elsewhere?  I am afraid
> that it would increase complexity, and substantially.  Indeed, the "Design 
> Patterns" book itself recommends "Favor 'object composition' over 'class 
> inheritance'".  And yet the Singleton pattern uses inheritance.  Had the 
> authors felt that composition were applicable for the Singleton, they would 
> have adopted it, don't you think?  Anyway, if an alternative to Singleton that
> uses composition has been documented somewhere, I would gladly peruse it.

Some years ago I published articles on the problems with programming by
extension. I'm hardly going to repeat them here. Using examples intended to show
the advantages of extension, I showed that programming by composition can do
anything extension can, leads to code that is clearer and easier to understand,
and that the examples violated basic S/W-engineering principles. The  papers can
be be found at

http://pragmada.x10hosting.com/papers.html

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Hold your temper. Count ten.... Now let 'er go.
You got a good aim."
Never Give a Sucker an Even Break
105