From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 22 Nov 91 00:17:18 GMT From: milton!mfeldman@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Michael Feldman) Subject: SPC Ada Quality and Style guide, version 2 Message-ID: <1991Nov22.001718.7888@milton.u.washington.edu> List-Id: In the rush to send off the posting about capitalization religions, I neglected to mention that, IMNSHO, the SPC document is a nice and generally thoughtful compendium of the current wisdom on Ada code quality and style. It's thought-provoking, for sure, and instead of re-inventing the wheel, cites other sources where appropriate (the old Nissen/Wallis compendium, other draft handbooks, etc.). All in all, a well-done and intellectually-honest reference. Some of the statements, especially on religious but relatively minor matters like capitalization, are too equivocal, in my opinion; they should either take a strong stand or show examples of the different valid ways to do it. But on the whole, and on matters more substantial than lexical style, the recommendations guidelines to represent mainstream consensus and present the issues in a balanced and well-considered fashion. As I said in the other post, SPC cannot be held responsible if a narrow-minded manager adopts their guidelines as gospel. There are many paths to good style and good design, and a savvy design team - managers and tekkies alike - will work things out in a consistent manner best-suited to the project at hand. I believe it would be a mistake for DoD or any other large organization to adopt a guidebook as a _standard_ and mandate compliance. That sort of oversimplification is exactly what we do NOT need. Get a copy and read it, if you're serious about Ada. You might not agree with everything in it (I don't), but it'll make you think, and that's (part of) what it's all about. Mike