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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,808505c9db7d5613 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: Looking for good Ada95 book Date: 1996/11/06 Message-ID: <55p7mo$k2n$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 194793847 references: <32723F6A.54A3@dtek.chalmers.se> <55955a$n04@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <55kmtp$3s3@top.mitre.org> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia nntp-posting-user: ok newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: mfb@mbunix.mitre.org (Michael F Brenner) writes: >I was not asked what my opinion was before forming this imaginary >consensus Actually, you were. You just weren't listening. There's no smiley on this, because it is literally true. The old AQ&S guidelines invited comment. Comments were also invited for the Ada 9x revisions (which turned out to be Ada 95). There was quite a long time when people could have written in comments about style. >and I feel that we should reject all nonsense standards >such as capitalization and then goes on to propose a standard for capitalisation >that take time away from making a program >semantically correct (solving the problem correctly) and making >it efficient. But you have this backwards. _Following_ a capitalisation convention *saves* time, because it eliminates unimportant decisions. >If a standard is going to become a consensus, it >should capitalize like almost all languages on Earth that have >capitals do: only acronyms and the first letter of each computer >program are capitals, all others are small letters. The first letter of each computer program? I merely note that English and German have *different* capitalisation rules, and pass on to the next point. >But most >importantly, do not make standards without the consent of the >victims who will be subjected to the tyrrany of those standards. >If I am not permitted input into the process, then the process >Must not be construed to effect me. You can with good reason level this charge at Microsoft, whose weird convention you _have_ to follow when using their C API. But you cannot level it at Ada, where there _was_ an opportunity for the general public to provide input. I read a lot of the documents, decided the people working on them knew what they were doing, and waited impatiently for the result. I had paper stacked about a metre feet high with this stuff. Did you notice, by the way, that if your claim about standards were extended to national laws, you would feel yourself free to ignore almost every law in the USA, certainly the Consistution would not bind you, and you would not feel obliged to obey the laws of _this_ country (Australia) and would merrily drive down the wrong side of the street. I wish more people would stop screaming about the "THEY are infringing on MY rights" side of things (in programming; screaming about rights is often a good idea in politics) and think about the courtesy they owe to other people who have to deal with their code. The _real_ victims are the people who have to maintain code written by someone who insisted on his rights. The whole point of Ada, after all, is to reduce costs over the _whole_ lifecycle, including maintenance. For what it's worth, I agree that a layout style should be based on natural language, and the Ada Quality & Style Guidelines explicitly mention that point. Pursuing the reductio ad absurdum a bit further, nobody asked *me* what the grammar, spelling, or vocabulary of English should be. I suppose I have a _right_ to "any reo I want patter", but I have no right to expect other people to like it, or to hire me. (I wonder how many people reading this group understand the old English comedy line "How bona to vada your dolly old eek" or the following sentence which most New Zealanders would have understood before the impact of American TV: "I need some kai in my puku.") -- Mixed Member Proportional---a *great* way to vote! Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.