Re: Ada OO Mechanism

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <375A8197.5DAB7C57@Botton.com>,
  David Botton <David@Botton.com> wrote:
> Yes, but possibly his project standardized on this alternate
> representation. Then this would be conformity, good style and
readable
> :)

Well I know there is a smiley here, but just so there is
no confusion in my thinking, a project that standardized
on such a NON-standard way of doing things would me making
a very serious mistake.

One of the important tasks of any project is to try to make
sure that your code is written in a way that people generally
familiar with your technology will be able to easily understand
and maintain.

For example, I consider the important thing about the GNAT code
not that people in the GNAT project find it easy to read here
at ACT, but that all sorts of people OUTSIDE the GNAT project
have commented that it was easy to read.

If we used some kind of bizarre non-standard way of doing
things (say upper case keywords and text indented in the
opposite direction from usual, and semicolons at the beginning
of each line instead at the end), I don't think we would
get this reaction.

        PROCEDURE horrible is
     x : integer
    ;y : integer
    ;BEGIN
  NULL
    ;END
    ;

(even if we followed this style rigourously :-)

Using Pascal style keywords in C programs is almost as bad
a transgression of normal coding standards in C!



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.