From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40,MSGID_SHORT
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 21 Nov 91 02:43:32 GMT
From: ajpo!wellerd@sei.cmu.edu  (David Weller)
Subject: Public Forum Issue/Nitpick
Message-ID: <815@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

OK, Here's a gripe (nitpick, if you're of that opinion):
 
At the latest Tri-Ada, the Software Productivity Consortium (SPC),
in cooperation with the AJPO, announced that the book,
"Ada Quality & Style" (AQ&S) was now placed in the public domain
(with appropriate recognition of copyright).  The manual released
publicly is now called the 2.0 version of AQ&S.  The implication
at Tri-Ada '91 was that SPC was now accepting comments from the 
public for suggestions to improve their (near) pending 2.1 version.
Instead of selecting the SEVERAL issues in the book that I take 
exception to, I'd rather discuss the one that I consider the most 
serious (well, ok, let's say, "most debatable"): Case usage.
 
For those of you who HATE this kind of argument, here's a chance to 
'j'unk this article:


OK, for those of you remaining (and I HOPE somebody from SPC is 
still here :-), here's my point:
The AQ&S Guide points out (section 2.1? Don't have it next to me
right now -- pretty good way to let you think this is an "informed"
opinion, huh?) that their recommendation, and the case style followed
throughout the guide, is lower case reserved words and everything
else in UPPER_CASE.  They quickly go on to point out that case usage
is a matter of taste (hence it's debatability), and that individual
organizations should set a style and follow it.  I claim that this
is preposterous, or at the least, unfair.  

In my previous organizations that used Ada (two of 'em , not counting
my current employer), "The Management" decided that the format in the
LRM was sufficient for a coding "standard", and thus employed the
style ENDORSED by SPC (Note carefully the trigger word <--).  In 
neither case did "The Management" evaluate the "why"s as to case
usage.  It was in the LRM, so that was the law.  It was also an
acceptable compromise between their old language (which required
upper case), and the "new" language (which was case sensitive,
which, IMVHO, was infinitely dumber than all upper case).  

My point? (I bet you thought I'd never get there! ;-)  The SPC
style PERPETUATES this cro-magnon decision making process
(personally, I'm in favor of ad hominem arguments, won't you
agree?).  My proposal, and I dare say I have found this to
be a widely accepted approach, is lower case reserved words
and mixed case identifiers.  My justification: ALL UPPER CASE
WORDS _DECREASE_ READING COMPREHENSION, OUR BRAINS HAVE NOT
BEEN TRAINED TO "READ" ALL UPPER CASE WORDS UNLESS YOU'RE
A 30 YEAR COBOL/FORTRAN DINOSAUR!!!  (Please, gentle reader, should 
you be a member of such a long and distinguished career in
the aforementioned languages, do not take offense at the comments,
it was just to make a point that UPPER CASE WORDS LOOK DUMB)
(Also, carefully notice the context switch; I've used upper case,
in accordance with netland rules (sec. 5.1, para. 13), which
states I may use upper case to indicate YELLING!!!).

I'm now interested in hearing rebuttals, "shut-up"s, flames, etc.,
I only ask that is be done in public.  (I"m writing "off-the-cuff"
anyway, I'll apoligize for transgressions later on).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Weller              |  I'm the Ultimate Cultural Masochist:
wellerd@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu |  I speak both Ada AND Esperanto!
----------------------------------------------------------------