Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java

[robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com]

In article <785fo3$thj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> >
> >   function x
> >     (Hello : Integer;
> >      Goodbye : Integer)
> >      return    Integer
>
> I do have to admit, I see no reason why following this
> guideline should be a big problem for anyone (except
> perhaps the leading ';' devotees). I would have a tough
> time at first not lining up the ':'s. I'm pretty used to
> the implicit "in"s being supplied too.

Actually we do line up the colons, that was an editing
typo on my part. As for implicit IN's that seems entirely
redundant in the function case. Of course the whole point
here is the "I'm pretty used to" phrase.

Yes, everyone is "pretty used to" a particular style, and
feels more comfortable in that style. That is the entire
point of my posts in this thread. What you want is that
everyone feel comfortable with everyone else's code and
that everyone is "pretty used to" the same style.

Yes, it takes a bit of an adjustment. For a long time I
followed the Alsys style rules, since I wrote most of my
Ada code for Alsys, and I certainly got used to it. At
this stage, having got used to the GNAT rules, which are
different, it would be an adjustment to go back to the
Alsys rules (all cap identifiers for example).

But for most people, other than unmanagable "devotees",
it is no big deal to adjust your style, it just takes a
little while, actually often a suprisingly short little
while, and surprisingly little effort, to switch what
you are "pretty used to".

In my experience the gain in working harmony in a group
is well worth this slight adjustment, and most certainly
for someone coming to the sources, it is a huge advantage
if the sources are consistent in style.

One important point here is that one should reach for even
greater consistency in style, far beyond simple syntax
rules. You cannot of course legislate or automate this
kind of consistency, but if you have a team that is
committed to the idea that consistency is important to
make it easier for people to understand one another's
code, and that is happy to conform on the simple syntax
issues then you have a much better chance of achieving
this greater level of consistency.

A note here is that for me, an essential element of
this kind of consistency is simplicity. Yes it is very
important that Ada has a large arsenal of powerful
features, but I am always amazed to see programs which
use all sorts of very complex features to achieve very
simple goals. My image is of a fire department rolling
out all available fire trucks, including specialized
ladders etc, just to put out a fire in a trash basket :-)

Robert Dewar

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own