Re:

[M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

"Alexander E. Kopilovich" <aek@VB1162.spb.edu> writes:

> M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote:
>  
> >> >Ada is a cathedral. Beautiful, mathematical and complete.
> >> 
> >> Well, like a cathedral - magnificient exterior, inspiring interior and good
> >> liturgy. What is not so impressive there - is the doctrine -;) 
> >
> >Which doctrine? I mean, with Ada?
> 
> Well, usually a cathedral is associated (at any given moment of time) with 
> some doctrine. 
> 
> Although Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine ) rightly notes
> that "Sometimes 'doctrine' is an ambitious word for a mere slogan", I didn't
> use the word in that sense, as the doctrine behind Ada is not a mere slogan,
> far from that. Therefore, if you don't know about that doctrine (and perhaps
> do not even suspect its existense) then I can't help it. After all, generally,
> real doctrines (unlike mere slogans) cannot be communicated via small talk.

> In the case of Ada language, the doctrine may be generally described as a set
> of principles, particular case studies and authoritative views that provide
> guidelines for the language development and maintenance.

Ah. As an hobbyist historian of old languages and operating systems:
Are their any online sources on those guidelines and case studies? 

I know about steelman, the standards and the rationales themselves. I
wasn't successful looking for tinman or woodenman and could not find a
lot on the pre standard design phase.

> >And what does the subject mean?
> 
> Just a recognition of extraordinary prolific participant in comp.lang.ada .

Substitute that as an extraordinary waste of time :-). I'll pipe down
from now one, I promise. When I started I didn't know, things would
develop in such a fashion and I felt somehow obligated to correct
misunderstandings about the position I took. After all, if I start
wondering about, let's say, GMGPL vs. GPL licensing issues and certain
licensing transitions and then get accused (a bit out of context) that
I only want to produce "proprietary software" with "other peoples free
tools", or not caring for free software, it would look just to bad if
I fell silent at exactly that point.

> Within an Ada program such a great producer of messages probably deserves
> a separate package (child package, of course) for proper encapsulation.

:-). 

Regards -- Markus