Re: Programming language vote - results

[kaz@latte.cafe.net (Kaz)]

In article <877355167snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>,
Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <344BCED0.2D51@dynamite.com.au>
>           aebrain@dynamite.com.au "Alan E & Carmel J Brain" writes:
>
>...
>
>>Hence my preference for Ada. When listening to C weenies - er -
>>enthusiasts talking about how their code is so tight, so efficient, and
>>above all so impenetrable that it's obviously superior to another
>>solution (in Ada so clear that "Any Fool could have written that"), I
>>have to take a dried-frog pill and count to 10.
>
>I don't know what sort of C programmers you talk to but that is *not*
>the sort of approach advocated on comp.lang.c. Here we're interested
>in code that is portable and clear. Optimisation is only a secondary
>issue, the most important aspect of that is choosing the right
>algorithm.

In any case, Ada's clarity of expression is extremely overemphasized
by Ada ween^H^H^H^Hadvocates.

Ada source has very little to guide the eye, due to its lack of the use of
concise graphical symbols. Blocks delimited by BEGIN and END simply do not
nest visually.  The comments introduced by -- simply don't stand out very
well. The input character set is excessively restricted, and simple ()
parentheses are too overloaded in meaning because {} and [] aren't available
(is x(y) a function call or an array ref?). Can you say dull? 
As a result, your brain has to do a lot more analysis when reading code,
since you have to subconsciously check the syntax and even some semantics
to glean information that could be lexically determined.

Ada programs tend to be verbose and amorphous looking, qualities which occlude
the meaning. (I'm talking about conventionally formatted programs, too e.g.
GNAT sources. It wouldn't be fair to pick a purposely obfuscated example,
just like it wouldn't be fair to choose an obfuscated C example.)

Although Ada is great, I wouldn't advocate it on grounds of lexical or
syntactic convenience or readability. You'd have to be crazy!
--