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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8508:: with SMTP id q8mr11420078ion.31.1559760618598; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:50:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:62cd:: with SMTP id z13mr1417614otk.251.1559760618416; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 11:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!g15no47087itd.0!news-out.google.com!l135ni44itc.0!nntp.google.com!i64no48777iti.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 11:50:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.234.171; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.234.171 References: <28facad3-c55f-4ef2-8ef8-004925b7d1f1@googlegroups.com> <89abdd73-28ff-46ec-b77e-b8324d496d9c@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <40d52c56-4eb4-4d99-a986-1b6ea159b113@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Why .ads as well as .adb? From: Optikos Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 18:50:18 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56490 Date: 2019-06-05T11:50:17-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:12:36 PM UTC-5, G. B. wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > > On 2019-06-05 11:04, Maciej Sobczak wrote: > >>>> So what exactly cannot be deduced? > >>>=20 > >>> The class. > >>=20 > >> What if I don't need the virtual "class" and I'm interested in the > >> single instance only? The one that I wrote? > >> I'd argue this is the most frequent case. > >=20 > > Would you never wanted to change anything?=20 >=20 > Changes are opportunities for generating business. If the customer is kno= wn > to pay for changes, then if the program text is both mathematically > satisfying and easy to maintain, changing it is done quickly. Therefore, > such programs generate small business at best, at least when the customer= s > know what the changes were. Otherwise, work can be made to look much. So, > the question becomes this: Can the mode of expression of a programming > culture be tuned to that sweet spot between program text satisfying > programmers on the one hand and programs that generate loads of work that > is caused by poor quality? >=20 > The mode of expression, then, needs to be studied and compared in real > world workshops that win and loose. This. Ada was designed (from an incomplete 1970s understanding) to partial= ly dismantle this vicious-cycle mentality of programmers' tail wagging the = business's dog and vice versa. A true solution to this problem that G.B. w= isely elucidates will be an extrapolation of the Ada vision that begets a f= undamental change to the business model of surviving software companies, wh= ile the inferior software companies die off. Perhaps the focus should shif= t from 1) merely an incrementally better Ada to 2) Ada-on-steroids that mak= es current Ada look like an antique, i.e., what if the HOLWG had never stop= ped? What if a never-ending HOLWG had behaved all these decades more like = the WiFi and USB working groups that pursue aggressive exponential improvem= ent instead of Ada's sublinear incremental improvement? Ada standardization efforts (and even SPARK's ability to model pointers) ar= e awesome advances, but to be honest they are awesome achievements because = the bar throughout the industry is set so low: in the land of the blind, t= he one-eyed man can easily rise to be the king. Think exponentially, not i= ncrementally.