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: 103376,1c8aeba24bc53c7b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mfb@mbunix.mitre.org (Michael F Brenner)
Subject: Re: Request for Ada Coding Standards
Date: 1997/08/16
Message-ID: <5t4apd$6eq@top.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 265174183
References: <33F4DFFA.7909@lmco.com>
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford Mass.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-08-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Why ask people to standardize syntax instead of the things that
make the code work? Why not ask people to:

   document the preconditions and boundaries of the software
   not delete customer service requests until released
   minimize coupling (such as pointers or references to global variables)
   maximize cohesion (each unit does one thing in a simple manner)

but do it any style they like. They will produce higher quality at
a lower life-cycle cost if you measure the above 4 items instead of
lines of code, capitalization, indentation, number of lines per unit,
bulky unit headers, meaningless comments, complexity metrics that
penalize nested CASE statements, or complexity metrics that give
equal penalty to multiple entrances (BAD) and multiple exits (GOOD),
in my opinion. I am not aware of any research that shows a reduction
of life-cycle cost for measuring syntax compliance over my 4 suggested
standards above. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any research
that shows a reduction in life-cycle cost for having a syntax standard
over any ONE of my 4 suggested standards above.

Mike Brenner