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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_SHORT
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 12 Dec 92 06:04:13 GMT
From: visicom!rlk@nosc.mil  (Bob Kitzberger)
Subject: Re: FORTRAN bug(was Re: C++ vs. Ada -- Is Ada loosing?)
Message-ID: <251@visicom.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

obry@flash.bellcore.com (Pascal Obry) writes:


>I like Ada because you can *read* it. And this seem to be one of the most
>important thing about a language. With goods choices for the identifier, you
>can read an Ada progam like a text, you don't have to translate what you read.

It is rare that I feel that Ada code is too verbose.  One of the instances
that comes to mind is the syntax for representation specifications, which
basically require duplicating the type definition just to provide the repspec.
For hundreds of lines of type specifications (e.g. a protocol definition)
the doubling of line count hinders maintenance (i.e. each change to a
data structure requires at least two changes: one in the type definition,
and one in the rep spec.)  OH well.

What is much, much more frustrating are the verbose, useless commenting
standards that one often finds on DoD projects.    What was once a
simple subprogram specification, with descriptive identifer names,
too often becomes a morass of useless information, often several
screens full of junk that some DoD or corporate coding standard requires.
Grrrrr.

	.Bob.
----------------
Bob Kitzberger          VisiCom Laboratories, Inc.
rlk@visicom.com         10052 Mesa Ridge Court, San Diego CA 92121 USA
                        +1 619 457 2111    FAX +1 619 457 0888