"Subtract C, add Ada"

[bill@valiant (R.A.L Williams)]

In article <3h1lfl$lr4@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> Samuel Mize wrote:
: In article <3gsr0e$oin@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>,
: R.A.L Williams <bill@valiant> wrote:
: >Never mind all that code, the main feature of the C code was that, at
: >the termination of the loop, the variable 'c' contained the character
: >which caused the loop to terminate. Are you suggesting a 'LastChar'
: >function as well. 

: In the Ada rewrite I provided, "at the termination of the loop, the
: variable 'c' contained the character which caused the loop to
: terminate."  However, it's contained in the package Files_Like_C.

Yes, I'm sorry. You're absolutely write. In that case, I see nothing
wrong with the code, but, are you suggesting that that much code is
more 'readable' than the C equivalent. OK, this is a relatively trivial
example. Anyone who can't understand your code probably shouldn't be
reading it anyway! Nonetheless the point remains that Ada code is more
verbose than C, and this can IMO obscure, rather than enhance, readability.

: We're now discussing a difference in design philosophy in standard
: I/O packages, not a difference in the languages.  My point was that
: you could implement either I/O design philosophy in Ada.  Mr. Ichbia
: et al picked a different design for their standard I/O package,
: named Text_Io, so you will have to code your own replacement if you
: want to use C-style I/O.  Just as if you wanted to use C-style I/O
: in PL/I or Fortran.  You *can* do this.

I wasn't particularly concerned in my original postings about specific
features such as I/O libraries. I worry more about the structure of Ada
giving me more 'hoops to jump through' to the extent that code is
*less* readable. Having been involved in a fair number of code
walkthroughs recently, 'reviewer fatigue' is an important issue.

: Sam Mize - smize@starbase.neosoft.com

Bill Williams