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:a5e:c705:: with SMTP id f5mr44325242iop.113.1560154674648; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 01:17:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:32a6:: with SMTP id u35mr29950262otb.81.1560154674457; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 01:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!g15no695191itd.0!news-out.google.com!l135ni785itc.0!nntp.google.com!s188no701478itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 01:17:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=165.225.84.70; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.225.84.70 References: <28facad3-c55f-4ef2-8ef8-004925b7d1f1@googlegroups.com> <87woi0xtwm.fsf@nightsong.com> <4a0438de-1f1d-4469-aae4-908854d378ea@googlegroups.com> <47d02bdc-6b50-43aa-bc5d-bb5b6225f5bd@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why .ads as well as .adb? From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 08:17:54 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56594 Date: 2019-06-10T01:17:54-07:00 List-Id: > No, you are proving that you refuse to comprehend my actual point: that= =20 > source file organization is irrelevant (except maybe to compilers). Then why people are defending separate spec files so hard? > You've=20 > never once said a word about the important point: reducing coupling. On the contrary. I have pointed that spec and implementations are coupled s= o much that people either generate fragments from one another or just copy-= paste snippets around. And there are languages that decided to stop pretend= ing that these are separate files and assigned separate roles to a single f= ile 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 rea= lly need them. > At this=20 > 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, bu= t experiences with other languages allow me to ask questions from some wide= r perspective. And thus, perhaps, better understand the Ada rationale (or t= he 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 introduc= ing notions from more languages (Eiffel, etc.). This makes it even more int= eresting. 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= =20 > >approaches. >=20 > Existence proves nothing about readability, suitability, or anything else= . Another potential Ada beginner will resign after seeing this statement. --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com