From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,495b037244521cf3 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,22b2c05a8088bbb2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Larry J. Elmore" Subject: Re: Leading zeros with Int_IO.Put()? Or another package? Date: 1996/11/26 Message-ID: <01bbdb3e$41a1d200$846700cf@ljelmore.montana>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 200746179 references: <327FB8A3.745B@itg-sepg.logicon.com> <55ubsh$lh0$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <56bi13$3pa$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <328A0DDD.94B@lmtas.lmco.com> <56rgou$r4k$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <56tjrh$4ak$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <56trsm$f5a$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <01bbd704$4e172000$5c6700cf@ljelmore.montana> <57bj2t$c6m$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> organization: CampusMCI newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1 Date: 1996-11-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: robin wrote in article <57bj2t$c6m$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>... > "Larry J. Elmore" writes: > > >robin wrote in article > ><56trsm$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.