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: 11390f,4c42ac518eba0bbe X-Google-Attributes: gid11390f,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4c42ac518eba0bbe X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4c42ac518eba0bbe X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c42ac518eba0bbe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: blaak@infomatch.com (Ray Blaak) Subject: Ada Readability (Re: Programming language vote - results) Date: 1997/10/23 Message-ID: <62mnju$8nh$1@berlin.infomatch.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 282583841 References: <344BCED0.2D51@dynamite.com.au> <877355167snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <62fau3$fko$1@latte.cafe.net> X-Complaints-To: usenet@berlin.infomatch.com X-Trace: berlin.infomatch.com 877584830 8945 (None) 199.60.99.1 Organization: InfoMatch Internet - Vancouver BC Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.apl,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-10-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: kaz@latte.cafe.net (Kaz) writes: >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. I would suggest that this is a subjective matter. For me Ada's verbose constructs stand out much better than C/C++'s, simply because there is an english-like way to read them. It is really a matter of what you are used to; once your brain is wired for a language, it can see it easily. As for needing to know the semantics, I would say that the situation is much worse in C++, where a function call might in fact be a constructor, implicit construction and type coversions are happening, and almost all operators can be user defined. Note that not knowing if x(y) is a function call or an array can be an advantage in that it need not matter how the mapping is implemented. Consider a look up table that starts off being implemented as a succinctly coded function, but is later changed to be a straight array for efficiency reasons. Client usage will not have to change. >Although Ada is great, I wouldn't advocate it on grounds of lexical or >syntactic convenience or readability. You'd have to be crazy! Call me crazy then. Cheers, The Rhythm is around me, The Rhythm has control. Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me, blaak@infomatch.com The Rhythm has my soul.