Re: Why .ads as well as .adb?

[Optikos <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:57:59 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Maciej Sobczak" <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:47d02bdc-6b50-43aa-bc5d-bb5b6225f5bd@googlegroups.com...
> >> Of course, you are essentially saying that separate
> >> compilation is unnecessary and all of the source for a program should be 
> >> in
> >> one giant file
> >
> > Of course you are proving now that you did not understand the question 
> > posted earlier in this thread.
> 
> No, you are proving that you refuse to comprehend my actual point: that 
> source file organization is irrelevant (except maybe to compilers). You've 
> never once said a word about the important point: reducing coupling.

How could Green team & Jean Ichbiah or Ada9X or some future Ada 2025-or-thereabouts go further than current Ada in reducing coupling?  One potential way that emerged long after Green team & HOLWG's efforts in the 1970s conceivably might be if HOLWG-operating-in-a-different-decade had mandated AOP aspects (as separation of concerns to the programmer) and requirements for weavers (as how the separation of concerns as axes are to intersect in a well-formed system).

And the leadership of the C++ community never has embraced AOP aspect weaving.  AOP is one of the few paradigms that C++ has not attempted (obtusely) to mimic.

Other than AOP, are there other potential ways beyond Ada's current capabilities that reducing coupling might be achieved?

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

I concur with that.