🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <10277@claris.com>, by peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce):
> There are a number of "components" within MacApp that I can simply use 
> based on their spec, but often I need to look inside at the source code 
> to figure out various things (debugging based on specs only isn't pretty).

    This should never happen; the specifications must completely describe
    what the component does.  Whenever you "look inside at the source code",
    at the very least, please update the spec on your way out...

> An aside.  Why all this bickering between the OOPs people (mainly C++ folks) 
> and the Ada folks?  I used Ada at my previous job and OOPs now and I think
> they're both great.  Both sides could learn something from the other rather
> than simply taking pot shots.  Sure Ada, C++, Object Pascal, even SmallTalk
> have their short comings (lots and lots!), but they all do have their good
> points too.

    I don't think either side is claiming that the other doesn't have
    any good points, but there does appear to be a considerable difference
    in the world views of the two sides, and therefore a dialogue has arisen
    so that each side might come to understand the other's perspective.

    For example, it may be that the OOP folks have an AI view of things
    (e.g., a willingness to consider risky things like self-modifying code
    in search of high levels of modifiability), whereas the Ada people
    prefer things which are efficient, reliable, rigorously defined, and 
    firmly under control.  Or it may be that real shortcomings exist which
    require correction.  A good discussion is the best way to find out. 


    Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu