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,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/21 Message-ID: <787b3n$fvb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 435217790 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <369F1D39.64A65BC1@sea.ericsson.se> <369f81a9.31040093@news.demon.co.uk> <77ommt$9bo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <77vhjf$nn9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <77vld9$qvg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <782rp0$kn6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6Oap2.16170$MW1.4028@news2.giganews.com> <783nnb$s9c@drn.newsguy.com> <784qvi$a0a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <78549k$iqv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <785fo3$thj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x16.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 21 13:46:33 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <785fo3$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