Re: Why .ads as well as .adb?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"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. At this 
point, it appears that you are mainly trolling, and I don't have time to 
mess with such nonsense.

> 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. 
As I said at the outset, most languages did not try to design their syntax 
or language for readability as Ada did. (Java, for instance, pretty much 
decided to copy C's syntax, meaning of course that most of the faults were 
copied too. Little or no consideration was given to human factors because 
they simply "kicked the can" elsewhere.) Similarly, popularity doesn't tell 
us much about the quality of engineering (the relationship might even be 
weakly inverse).

                                   Randy.