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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4e4d:: with SMTP id eb13mr4564497qvb.169.1589565339665; Fri, 15 May 2020 10:55:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aca:5987:: with SMTP id n129mr2782950oib.99.1589565339183; Fri, 15 May 2020 10:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 10:55:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.121.70.69; posting-account=pQzPUgkAAAAOiiJHd16-n1B6leDCaI3_ NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.121.70.69 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Implicit actions & program correctness From: deadhacker Injection-Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 17:55:39 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:58694 Date: 2020-05-15T10:55:38-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 10:45:14 AM UTC-7, deadhacker wrote: > Hi all. I am an old programmer who is new to Ada. (I do not use Ada on = the job.) >=20 > In the Ada books I'm reading, there's an emphasis on correctness & early = bug detection that I haven't seen in many other books. It's led me to cont= rast that with what I see on the job. >=20 > On the job, we often use frameworks such as Spring (for Java) to "autowir= e" components. It means that a lot of work is done implicitly by that fram= ework. As one who audits systems, that implicit work makes is _really_ dif= ficult to be sure that I understand how the program works, much less to ver= ify correctness. >=20 > It makes me wonder what experienced Ada programmers think of work done im= plicitly by a program. Have you run into similar practices? Have you been= able to talk people into ending them? >=20 > I guess another way to look at what I'm wondering is: In books about soft= ware engineering with Ada, I see lots of talk about correctness especially = by moving bug detection to the compile phase. How often can that actually = be done? >=20 > (Full disclosure: These are kind of a dumb questions because I think I kn= ow what Ada programmers might answer, so I feel a little guilty about askin= g, but I still hope to learn something & engage in some interesting talk.) Addendum to my own post: As well as mentioning error detection at compile-t= ime, I should have also mentioned making things explicit. To me so far, a = prominent essence of Ada appears to be "make things straightforward & expli= cit". Very different from "autowiring" components.