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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e276c1ed16429c03 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada is getting more popular! Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:35:03 +0100 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <5086cc5e-cd51-4222-a977-06bdb4fb3430@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <14fkqzngmbae6.zhgzct559yc.dlg@40tude.net> <8732ea65-1c69-4160-9792-698c5a2e8615@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4cc60705$0$23764$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc6753c$0$23756$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc71e08$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc87d7a$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc912e1$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: gHYtk+mhCrTAX6LNXybaBQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.63 (Win32) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:15971 Date: 2010-10-31T02:35:03+01:00 List-Id: Le Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:28:59 +0200, J-P. Rosen a =C3=A9= crit: > Short answers: > 1) Complexity of projects that use inheritance tends to grow quadratic= > 2) No other discipline of engineering uses classification as a /design= / > method; classification is used to organize artifacts after they have > been designed > 3) Not all people find classification natural. I don't know whether it= > is linked to left-brained or right-brained people, but there are huge > variations among people. May add classification is more static than composition, or at least, = cannot evolve as easily as a construction built upon composition. An example : the live beings are commonly subject to classification, but= = this is a flagrant case of distance with real life : live beings evolved= = such a way which make it impossible to be modeled with classification. = Just think about the whales : first =E2=80=9Camphibians=E2=80=9D like al= l mammiformes, = they later get legs to become animals living on the ground, then later = again, loose their back legs to go back live to the aquatic world. A = classification analysis would be broken all the time the story goes. And= = when will you decide their changed place in the classification ? This is= a = natural examples which show classification is not so much natural as one= = of the way to do OOD pretends. I said classification may be good to handle large complex set of types (= in = reply to someone else), we may add this : classification may better suit= s = well to what is static only (despite dynamic dispatching which is runtim= e = only, the overall architecture is probably condemned to remain static). A prediction to check would be that composition produce applications whi= ch = are more easily updated and adapted to new specifications later after th= ey = were deployed (the corollary would be that in a similar case, a = classification oriented designed application, would probably inspires th= e = idea its better to re-start everything from the ground-up). To be checke= d=E2=80=A6 -- = Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c=E2=80=99es= t pas pour = les chiens.