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_20 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 12:24:05 EST From: SYSTEMS Administrator (AJPO.SEI.CMU.EDU) Subject: Ada STYLE GUIDE FOLLOWUP Message-ID: <9101091728.AA29538@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> List-Id: ------- Blind-Carbon-Copy To: action Subject: Ada STYLE GUIDE FOLLOWUP Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 12:24:05 EST From: SYSTEMS Administrator (AJPO.SEI.CMU.EDU) TO: AJPO Host Users FROM: John P. Solomond, Director, Ada Joint Program Office SUBJECT: Ada STYLE GUIDE FOLLOWUP DATE: 9 January 1991 >>From 20 September to 20 November, 1990, the Ada Joint Program Office (AJPO) made a draft Ada style guide available and invited public comments about the suitability of using it as the basis for a military handbook. Comments were solicited through the Defense Data Network (DDN) and the Ada Information Clearinghouse (AdaIC) Bulletin Board. A public review was held on 6 December at the TRI-Ada conference in Baltimore. Usability: Many users noted the benefits to be obtained from the availability of a generally recognized style guide. In its absence, organizations frequently write their own guides from scratch -- duplicating work already performed elsewhere. However, other users pointed out that the problem was not really the lack of a style guide; some suggested there were even too many guides available in some organizations. Rather, they felt the problem was the lack of a convenient, readable guide that would actually encourage its own use. The problem was not that there weren't any guides, but that the guides available weren't being read and followed. Without too many specifics: Additionally, it was felt that a guide should leave certain areas open for each organization to choose (such as indentation conventions). In this regard, some felt that the proposed draft was over-specific in its prescriptions -- and had to be that way because it was itself intended to be used with a specific organization. (The document used for the draft was the Ada Style Guide of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.) A large number of users felt that it would be better to look for a style guide that had been intended for use across a variety of organizations. It was felt this would be much more efficient than attempting to generalize a document that had been created to give all the detailed guidance that would be needed in a specific project or organization. A question: One style guide was repeatedly mentioned as striking a good balance: the Software Productivity Consortium's "Ada Quality and Style; Guidelines for Professional Programmers". The question now facing the Ada Joint Program Office is how to respond to the comments and suggestions. The primary need appears to be not just for another guide, but for one that will be suitable for a variety of organizations, and one that will be readily accepted by users. If the SPC guide meets this dual need, the problem is that it is a "private" product. While the SPC engages in general research, it is a profit-making venture. How would that square with getting the "blessing" of the AJPO? We must now research the legality and ramifications of endorsing a private product. This is the avenue now being considered between the AJPO and the SPC. ------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy