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=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!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Vinzent Hoefler" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada is getting more popular! Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:00:37 +0200 Message-ID: References: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Trace: individual.net WssictkP/h12JC+M2s72xwJQjR3ZF/Hu/qvq7j/jycG6epsbQL Cancel-Lock: sha1:rseT5IRUxKqmInvlq59gm8gLScQ= User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.62 (Win32) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:15947 Date: 2010-10-30T19:00:37+02:00 List-Id: On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:30:05 +0200, Yannick Duch=C3=AAne (Hibou57) wrote: > To be more precise or exact, you may have missed to point the area the= se > comments applies to. I guess this is right for some requirements (you > talked about a manual, seems to contains restrictive requirements). Yes. What we do is mission-critical at minimum. You should see the restr= iction they put on _safety-critical_. ;) > Say it's universal is less obvious. Well, the problems that may appear are universal. The "risk assessment" regarding the usage of such "potentially dangerous" features is not. After all, a lot of software is written in C and other unsafe languages and still works most of the time. ;) > As an example of your objections, you said =E2=80=9CThey may even call= subroutines > which are completely out of the scope of the unit you're calling it fr= om=E2=80=9D > : sometime this what is expected to be possible, most commonly with > scripted application (which can extended with script). Better say this= can > occurs while it was not expected. Said this way, I would agree. Let me put it this way: If you do it, you _have_ to expect it. If you're= happy with the possible consequences or not depends on other factors. In other non-critical projects (support tools etc.) I already used tagge= d types and even languages like Perl. Or GPS scripts in Python. If these do something unexpected there's nothing more than just annoyance among t= he developers. If our product does something unexpected, well... let me put= it this way: expressed in DO178B levels it would rank somewhere between B and C. > May be inheritance is dedicated to large complex set of types and > composition where it needs to be predictable. I could agree with that. :) > I've understood you complained, not about inheritance and rather about= > dynamic dispatching. But when inheritance come, dynamic dispatching is= > near to be there, just because if there is inheritance, you have to sa= y > what the operations associated to these types will become as inheritan= ce > goes (you can also make them all frozen, or never use class wide types= , > true). You understood correctly. > As another question to feed the talk : will you see a way to handle la= rge > set of types with composition ? It's certainly possible, yes. > Does composition provides another way to > group by similarities and handle these groups as a whole ? Apart from generics I don't see any nice solutions, no. Vinzent. -- = There is no signature.