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,e7ceb00d83425e3a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!out01b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc02.usenetserver.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Prototyping with Ada
References: 
 <ba91fec6-cfc1-4b48-ad96-fa2a233e66f4@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
 <878wy9uyg9.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <d419cb3c-da09-42f8-98a6-75bba927167c@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
 <87zlqptajv.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <7f3435c6-bacb-4e02-a1de-2e73a417ba6c@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
 <87r6c0sei2.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <pan.2008.05.18.00.35.38.923802@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <87k5hsrqbi.fsf_-_@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <8e953413f88u9slj1es57kuegqdvn908ul@4ax.com> <u3aoabufs.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <5kgq34po8tmg50p8v75a1810ug5gmpfg03@4ax.com>
From: Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 02:03:12 -0400
Message-ID: <u7idb80yn.fsf@nasa.gov>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/22.2 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kzpkii8sG7V2bw3EHeIVThjkb4s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: 30af74840e529e05e48ed17327
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:496
Date: 2008-05-31T02:03:12-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On Thu, 22 May 2008 04:43:19 -0400, Stephen Leake
> <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>>John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>
>>> If you approach the whole thing from the point of view you describe,
>>> then you're just taking what may be poor quality code and making it a
>>> bit better, which doesn't necessarily make the code (or design!) good.
>>
>>If you do refactoring right, you can incrementally improve the quality
>>of code.
>
> Code quality, yes (but your use of the term "right" is very
> important!). It is much more difficult to refactor an inadequate
> design at that point.

I refactor to change design all the time. Since I right good code in
the first place, that's pretty much the _only_ reason I refactor :).
Some people include "change design" in the definition of "refactor".

Changing the basic architecture (say from monolithic program on one
computer to networked client/server, or from non-real-time to
real-time) is not something you can typically do via refactoring. But
changing lower-level design is possible.

Ada is a very good language for expressing design (much better than
UML!). It also happens to be executable; that's just a side benefit
:).

-- 
-- Stephe