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: 103376,2a687662f09731bb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc06.POSTED!20ae255c!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: Anonymous Coward <spam@spam.com>
Subject: Re: Don't use the "use" clause
References: <dld0t5$df3$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
 <ZqCdnSOLI6WepefeRVn-uw@comcast.com>
 <slrndnlfs8.1pa.bogus_addy@tango.mindfuq.org> <m2acg5i1ko.fsf@grendel.local>
 <dlelkn$g6l$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
 <slrndnoa1k.22e.bogus_addy@tango.mindfuq.org>
 <1132227919.9036.51.camel@sonnenregen> <u3blv30wu.fsf@acm.org>
 <1132233886.11218.11.camel@sonnenregen> <ulkzmsw5v.fsf@acm.org>
 <slrndnv9qv.1r7.bogus_addy@tango.mindfuq.org> <op.s0h8tifc5afhvo@localhost>
 <kAngf.38218$4n5.24291@dukeread01> <op.s0lunzyd5afhvo@localhost>
Message-Id: <slrndo4vtv.ik3.bogus_addy@tango.mindfuq.org>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:15:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.44.82.251
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: trnddc06 1132618555 129.44.82.251 (Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:15:55 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:15:55 EST
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6525
Date: 2005-11-22T00:15:55+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <op.s0lunzyd5afhvo@localhost>, 
Ed Falis wrote:
> 
> I think this is a case of "your mileage may vary", or "you can't
> argue taste".

I would agree that you can't argue taste purely on the merits of
personal preference, but as soon as you bring in the bu$iness case,
the answer becomes clear.  Egocentrics who can't see outside
themselves cannot effectively argue from the perspective of analysing
code written by others.

The cost of having too much information is *cheaper* than the cost of
having too little information, because the trained eye can very
quickly ignore what is not interesting.  It's certainly not equally
fast to find missing information.

To test that claim, simply go to a web site with banner ads.  Can you
find the interesting content quicker than you can mouse around and
click the Firefox "ad block" tab on the unwanted ad?  Probably.  I
don't even see the banner ads anymore.

I know first hand from a project that had an unenforced prohibition on
use clauses, for which the company lost copious manhours due to
undisciplined programmers abusing the use clause (when combined with
crappy tools).  Superior tools would have reduced thoses losses
substantially.  But then you would have to consider the cost of the
better tools themselves.  With the hypothetically best tools, and
assuming they are better than a mouse over cross reference which will
also accommodate code reviews, you're only breaking even at best.