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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d89b08801f2aacae X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-03 12:51:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost? Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 14:51:28 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <4519e058.0204290722.2189008@posting.google.com> <3CCE8523.6F2E721C@earthlink.net> <3CCEB246.9090009@worldnet.att.net> <3CCFD76A.A60BB9A8@flash.net> <3CD0A3B8.7B7C8622@san.rr.com> <3CD15FAE.6DEE0AD@despammed.com> <3CD16B60.93078396@san.rr.com> <3CD1B496.DBE8ADC4@san.rr.com> <3CD1BACC.8938FEAB@despammed.com> <3CD1D17B.F60DCB89@san.rr.com> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3719.2500 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23509 Date: 2002-05-03T14:51:28-05:00 List-Id: Darren New wrote in message <3CD1D17B.F60DCB89@san.rr.com>... >Now, if I change X to be a date instead of an age, how many places to I >need to change it? I need to change it two places in Y's body and one >place in Y's header, and Y doesn't even care whether its argument is an >age or a date, since it doesn't do anything with it except pass it to >other functions. This is a tools problem, not a language problem. I can easily imagine a programming system for Ada that included a command that let you change the current declaration and all of its uses. That isn't even that hard to implement (think ASIS tool). >It's exactly the same sort of >wide-spread changing that OO is supposed to reduce. It seems unusual to be changing your objects so fundementally that you would want to change the name. >It requires the subprogram to be declared to compile a call to it, and >it requires the subprogram to be implemented to link. (The difference >between being able to compile and being able to link is kind of academic >when the goal is to do both at least five times an hour, so I wasn't >really distinguishing all the steps between "finish writing" and "being >able to run".) Again, the whole idea of "compile" and "link" is based on the "conventional" way to look at Ada. You will find very little in the standard that assumes this model, for the very simple reason that the designers believed that it would someday be useful to use a different model. The only real requirement for error handling in Ada is that "compile-time" errors are detected before the program begins to execute. So, again, this is a tools problem. With some imagination, it isn't unreasonable to think of an Ada programming environment which completely did away with visible notions of compilation. Essentially, the environment would compile the source as it is needed; no explicit commands needed. Certainly, if XP catches on big-time, you'll see environments like that for all programming languages. >Err, no. Apparently, you don't understand enough about XP to even have >an idea of why Ada is poorly suited to it. I'll grant you that existing Ada environments are poorly suited to XP. It's unclear if the language really is, or if it is simply a deficiency of the current environments. Randy.