Re: Why .ads as well as .adb?

["G.B." <bauhaus@notmyhomepage.invalid>]

On 10.06.19 10:17, Maciej Sobczak wrote:
>> 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.

"Need" is perhaps worth a little consideration.
Writing a spec requires expensive thought and work. And payment...

When a spec can be extracted from a source text of an implementation,
properly annotating for export seems like pretty much the same work to me.

One more point in favor of Ada's specific separations:

When writing contracts in terms of Pre, Post, ... aspects,
then these, too, have public parts in the spec and private parts
in the body. If Eiffel were to have this separation mapped to its
visibility specifications, the consequences will, I guess, simply
be too far-reaching. IIRC.