Re: Leading zeros with Int_IO.Put()? Or another package?

["Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net>]

robin <rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in article
<57bj2t$c6m$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>...
> 	"Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> writes:
> 
> 	>robin <rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in article
> 	><56trsm$f5a$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>...
> 	>> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
> 	>>>>From the Introduction section of ISO/IEC 8652:1995: 
> 	>>>>"The need for languages that promote reliability and simplify
maintenance
> 	>>>>is well established. Hence emphasis was placed on program
readability over
> 	>>>>ease of writing."
> 	>>>>Ada clearly failed in this aspect.
> 	>>>This is not clear at all.
> 	>> ---It is abundantly clear that it failed as to ease of writing.
> 	>Wait a minute, Robin. First you quote ISO/IEC 8652:1995
> 
> Larry, if you look back at the earlier posts, you'll find
> that Ken Garlington quoted this, not me.

Oops... The original quote of ISO/IEC 8652:1995 ws indeed from Ken
Garlington. However, Robin, the totally spurious conclusion that "it [Ada]
failed as to ease of writing." is entirely yours. It couldn't have failed
as to ease of writing because that was subordinated to ease of reading.

> 	>where it justifies
> 	>the decision to favor program readability (to promote reliability and
> 	>maintainability) over ease of writing and then state that Ada clearly
> 	>failed in this respect. Then you immediately turn around and state that
Ada
> 	>failed in ease of writing.
> 
> That too.  If it's not easy to write, it's not going
> to be easy to maintain either.

I fail to understand how one can come to that conclusion. Ada is *far* more
maintainable than other languages that are "easier" to write, C being a
prime example. Besides, if you'd given the matter any thought, you'd have
realized that Ada is "not easy to write" in the sense that it is quite
verbose compared other languages (such as C), and it is precisely because
of that verbosity that it is eminently readable and therefore more easily
maintainable. The more you write on this subject, the more obvious it
becomes that you have little knowledge and even less experience with Ada
95.

> 	>As you had just pointed out, it was never
> 	>designed with ease of writing as a major priority (nor should it have
been,
> 	>since all major software is read many, many more times than it is
written,
> 	>mostly by programmers other than the original designer). My point being
> 	>that it *did not* fail in that respect as you mistakenly claim. It
exactly
> 	>met its design goals! 
> 
> 	>> Various postings suggested that the conversion could be done in up to
> 	>> 82 lines of Ada code, whereas PL/I requires one simple line.
> 
> 	>"Up to 82 lines of Ada"? Really, Robin... I've no doubt I could
replicate
> 	>some aspect of Ada 95 that PL/1 lacks in "up to" any number of lines of
> 	>PL/1 I care to bloat it up to...
> 
> You've missed the point.  Those suggestions were from Ada
> afficionados.  We assume that they are not going to "bloat
> it up" to favor PL/I.  The posters were quite serious.

I didn't miss the point. *You're* the one who quoted "up to 82 lines of Ada
code." That certainly reads as though you picked the worst example
presented, *not* the best one. The English language may sometimes be obtuse
and ambiguous, but your usage of it in this instance is quite clear. The
Ada posters didn't intentionally bloat their code if they were serious in
defending Ada, but you should know as well as anyone else in the field that
their are good examples of how to do something and hideous examples. Did
you cite the best possible example or the worst, Robin?


-- 
Larry J. Elmore

"A man's worth is no greater than the worth of his ambitions."
-- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, "Meditations," c. 170 A.D.

"The universe is change; our lives what our thoughts make of it."
-- Ibid.