TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Joel Seidman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Joel Seidman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 13 Apr 1998 17:32:53 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
Mail*Link( SMTP               with considered harmful? (was: Compilation
speed dataI

Robert I. Eachus said:

<<I've actually had to convince projects to accept guidelines...
(More than six withs on a package spec, or fifteen on a package body
indicates that there is restructuring that should be considered.  There are
good arguments for having more withs on the main program, but a with on a
subunit is almost always an indication of a design problem.) >>


I found this very interesting. I've always considered minimizing with's a
good design goal, evidencing good choice of modularity. But I'm sure many
programmers I work with are not aware of the concept you are advocating.
While most would never (almost never) use a "goto", many would add a "with"
at the drop of a hat if it would "make the program work". Are there specific
references I can cite when I argue for this? (I don't have enough
authority/stature, and saying "some guy on the internet said so" has never
worked well for me.) Or is this just basic stuff "everybody knows"?

-- Joel

ATOM RSS1 RSS2