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: 103376,751584f55705ddb7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kevin@aimnet.com (Kevin Dalley)
Subject: Re: Ada is almost useless in embedded systems
Date: 1996/03/16
Message-ID: <8720mtndal.fsf@aplysia.iway.aimnet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 142954168
sender: kevin@aplysia.iway.aimnet.com
references: <823906039.22113@assen.demon.co.uk>
organization: Aimnet Information Services
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>>>>> "Laurent" == Laurent Guerby <Laurent.Guerby@enst-bretagne.fr> writes:

> Scott H. James writes

> : (5) Verbosity: Ada has all of C's unary and binary operators, but Ada
> :     requires C's assignment operators to be spelled out. This is an
> :     aesthetic issue, and possibly a readability issue.

> Readability  for what ???  I always thought that a+=b  was  a hint for
> poor optimizers. But that's a matter of taste ;-)

I once thought that.  Currently, I find that it is more clear for
programmers, and less prone to error then spelling out the same same
variable twice.  This is particularly true if the variable name is
long, for example an element of an array or of a structure:

	fred->array[x+i] += 5;

is much easier for a human to understand than:

	fred->array[x+i] = fred->array[x+i] + 5;

and easier to distinguish from:

	fred->array[x+i] = fred->array[x+i-1] + 5;

kevin

-- 
kevin
kevin@aimnet.com