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:aed:3242:: with SMTP id y60mr3002121qtd.127.1589564713223;
        Fri, 15 May 2020 10:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:3488:: with SMTP id b130mr2832432oia.44.1589564712453;
 Fri, 15 May 2020 10:45:12 -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 10:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
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
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d4cc5c66-b82a-4ef7-8e69-2fa9b7bd99a6@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Implicit actions & program correctness
From: deadhacker <gstover@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 17:45:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:58692
Date: 2020-05-15T10:45:12-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hi all.  I am an old programmer who is new to Ada.  (I do not use Ada on th=
e job.)

In the Ada books I'm reading, there's an emphasis on correctness & early bu=
g detection that I haven't seen in many other books.  It's led me to contra=
st that with what I see on the job.

On the job, we often use frameworks such as Spring (for Java) to "autowire"=
 components.  It means that a lot of work is done implicitly by that framew=
ork.  As one who audits systems, that implicit work makes is _really_ diffi=
cult to be sure that I understand how the program works, much less to verif=
y correctness.

It makes me wonder what experienced Ada programmers think of work done impl=
icitly by a program.  Have you run into similar practices?  Have you been a=
ble to talk people into ending them?

I guess another way to look at what I'm wondering is: In books about softwa=
re 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?

(Full disclosure: These are kind of a dumb questions because I think I know=
 what Ada programmers might answer, so I feel a little guilty about asking,=
 but I still hope to learn something & engage in some interesting talk.)