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,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-31 17:55:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!spool1.news.uu.net!spool0.news.uu.net!reader0.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Sender: DB3L@CTWD0143 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How to make Ada a dominant language References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <9k3l9r$10i2$1@pa.aaanet.ru> <3B656345.64AB603A@sneakemail.com> <9k3oa1$2qg8$1@pa.aaanet.ru> <3B657715.7EC592D9@sneakemail.com> <3B6588FC.6D40C443@sneakemail.com> <87snfe9sir.fsf@520075220525-0001.dialin.t-online.de> From: David Bolen Date: 31 Jul 2001 20:54:21 -0400 Message-ID: Organization: Fitlinxx, Inc. - Stamford, CT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.247.212.3 X-Trace: reader0.news.uu.net 996627256 7271 208.247.212.3 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10902 Date: 2001-07-31T20:54:21-04:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison writes: > I shouldn't laugh, because it is meant seriously. But complaining > about being forced to think while programming is like complaining > about being forced to immerse yourself while swimming; it is the > very nature of the task. A real developer can no more sit down at a > keyboard and just "hack" out a good program than a real writer can > just sit down at a word-processor and hack out a good novel. I know > some writers who actually formally outline their *emails* before > starting to write them. But for some reason this level of > forethought is not appreciated by the masses where software > development is concerned. Of course, real writers certainly go through drafts and often write in a stream-of-consciousness just to get down their thoughts, so that might be a bit strained of an analogy. I don't think it has to be an either/or situation - iterative, evolutionary development (and even something like XP) has its merits just as does a more classical, staged development (although I must admit a bias in not being the biggest fan of strict waterfall). I do cringe when I think of all those VB programmers (of which I am not one, although I work with them) considering an application to be nothing more than snippets of code associated with GUI elements, but in some environments (hopefully small ones :-)), it can be both a practical and efficient means to an end. And good programs come in all sizes, and "goodness" has many dimensions. Note also that an evolutionary development strategy need not preclude an overall architecture or system design, but can build on a framework to flesh out that design over time while still producing measurable and testable intermediate results. Just because you're producing some basic functionality sooner doesn't mean you aren't aiming at the same overall design, and in fact the iterations can help prevent design mistakes (or malformed requirements) from showing up very late in the game. Does that preclude a more formal approach in other cases? Of course not. But I think it's crucial that a real developer today understand more than just one approach to application design and development, and more importantly, be able to weigh the pros and cons in the context of any given situation. Given the breadth of environments within which software is used today, I don't think that one size fits all, nor that one language fits all. Then again, maybe that was never true :-) -- -- David -- /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\ \ David Bolen \ E-mail: db3l@fitlinxx.com / | FitLinxx, Inc. \ Phone: (203) 708-5192 | / 860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT 06902 \ Fax: (203) 316-5150 \ \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/