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: 101deb,495b037244521cf3 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,22b2c05a8088bbb2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (robin) Subject: Re: Leading zeros with Int_IO.Put()? Or another package? Date: 1996/11/25 Message-ID: <57bj2t$c6m$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 198554445 expires: 20 February 1997 00:00:00 GMT references: <327FB8A3.745B@itg-sepg.logicon.com> <55ubsh$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$5c6700cf@ljelmore.montana> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1 nntp-posting-user: rav Date: 1996-11-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Larry J. Elmore" writes: >robin wrote in article ><56trsm$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. >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. >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. >Larry J. Elmore