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" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What exactly is the licensing situation with GNAT? Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 14:18:46 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <87389olqie.fsf@ixod.org> <10d9w.55626$8w1.22302@fx12.iad> <150er0b62wsh3$.1xabmp81w5kdw.dlg@40tude.net> <2Oj9w.86043$uw3.37688@fx10.iad> <20141115082255.58da7f92@atmarama.ddns.net> <20141115115116.06fdf752@atmarama.ddns.net> <20141115134157.10955d4e@atmarama.ddns.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: wfRpp7ltpEWhI2na6kgpfA.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:23373 Date: 2014-11-15T14:18:46+01:00 List-Id: On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:41:57 +0100, Gour wrote: > On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:26:02 +0100 > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: > >> Ignoring absurdity of the idea that engineering could exist without an >> underlying scientific discipline, > > Engineering is about being pragmatic and solving the (practical) > problems, by *applying* a specific science. E.g. mechanical engineering. Solving practical problems is not necessary engineering. Without mechanics solving mechanical problems is merely artisanship. > while science is, supposed to, about finding the truth. > >> if your interpretation of Dijkstra were that Ada is bad science and >> [maybe, he never said so] good engineering, then why you interpret his >> quote about OO differently? > > Simply because OOP is not science, but just craft about one of many ways > how to solve problems. Yes. OOP is would-be engineering, the corresponding would-be science is the types theory. >> Wouldn't it be simpler just to accept that Dijkstra as ingenious he >> certainly was, regardless his enormous contribution to software >> engineering principles, e.g. "correct by construction", didn't >> understand software engineering well? > > I hope you understand that I do not hold opinion that Dijkstra is > all-knowing God, but that does not mean that his quote about OOP as 'way > of solving problems' and Ada as 'science' are to be dismissed. IMO his interest and competence lied elsewhere. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de