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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT?
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:28:32 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <r1d4ixobb06g.1vbe3tnkhv5am.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <DA%7w.753721$Y4.288171@fx24.iad>
 <cd91630f-d78d-4eab-830c-f71005e93fc0@googlegroups.com>
 <084b1934-9641-425e-85ec-293e0334413e@googlegroups.com>
 <86bf69c8-eb08-4696-b6c9-3784f5c42213@googlegroups.com>
 <Jwy8w.500685$Ub6.487517@fx20.iad>
 <d4b8f45d-e327-4d78-a0d6-838aba063e4d@googlegroups.com>
 <lyoascltws.fsf@pushface.org> <YYE8w.620042$Lj7.284655@fx22.iad>
 <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <zTF8w.509165$No4.167804@fx19.iad>
 <fca06fd0-6970-46a5-95b9-6b6317a37f7c@googlegroups.com>
 <aSG8w.567817$Q61.266688@fx13.iad> <m40odq$tdv$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <DbU8w.703256$Fo3.563225@fx09.iad> <m439g4$bq9$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <m43c6o$1v1$1@dont-email.me> <10d9w.55626$8w1.22302@fx12.iad>
 <150er0b62wsh3$.1xabmp81w5kdw.dlg@40tude.net>
 <2Oj9w.86043$uw3.37688@fx10.iad> <g7kfyy8dc0dn.vbx9yb5i07os$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <m4cain$fvf$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyHeW7QjJmC1odUjK4LkDA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:23450
Date: 2014-11-17T09:28:32+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 08:11:03 +0000 (UTC), Stan Mills wrote:

> On 2014-11-14, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> 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,  SW engineering is not a proper engineering yet]

> Just because the top scientists discover cures for terrible diseases doesn't
> mean the guy who takes out the trash in your office building is qualified to
> be a doctor just by filling a syringe with the stuff the scientists developed.
> 
>> 2. Writing your own new code requires more upfront thinking and writing but
>> is greatly safer in the long run.
> 
> 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.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de