Re: Why .ads as well as .adb?

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

> No, you are proving that you refuse to comprehend my actual point: that 
> source file organization is irrelevant (except maybe to compilers).

Then why people are defending separate spec files so hard?

> You've 
> never once said a word about the important point: reducing coupling.

On the contrary. I have pointed that spec and implementations are coupled so much that people either generate fragments from one another or just copy-paste snippets around. And there are languages that decided to stop pretending that these are separate files and assigned separate roles to a single file instead. Now the coupling is gone, there is less clutter and the design patterns for large-scale code design are still available for those who really need them.

> At this 
> point, it appears that you are mainly trolling,

Or maybe you are just running out of arguments. Which is fine. I can accept the Ada history (just like I accept the C++'s one) without fighting it, but experiences with other languages allow me to ask questions from some wider perspective. And thus, perhaps, better understand the Ada rationale (or the lack of it (which is fine)).
What I don't accept is the religious attitude that Ada is the only language that got the software engineering right and (consequently) that everything else is broken. And I'm happy that this discussion was widened by introducing notions from more languages (Eiffel, etc.). This makes it even more interesting. Or me even more trolling - whatever you choose to see.

> > 1. There *are* languages that don't use separate spec files. Java and
> >Python are well known examples, representing both compiled and scripted 
> >approaches.
> 
> Existence proves nothing about readability, suitability, or anything else.

Another potential Ada beginner will resign after seeing this statement.

-- 
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com