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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,577df5d4a0e88785 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-12-15 17:40:04 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!216.227.56.88.MISMATCH!telocity-west!TELOCITY!cyclone.bc.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: Robert Dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Bad coding standards Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:28:12 GMT Organization: Deja.com Message-ID: <91egf6$vei$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.41 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Dec 16 01:28:12 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x70.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.41 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3193 Date: 2000-12-16T01:28:12+00:00 List-Id: In article , > Why not? Seeing how the Ada Reference Manual is > the "bible" of the Ada language, written by the > founders (or "pillars") of the language. No, that's a peculiar description. It is a formal standard. > Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the > examples given in the reference manual would be > written in a "good" style? No it would be unreasonable. The examples are supposed to illustrate the semantics, and the purpose of illustrations is to show the semantics, not to suggest how Ada should be written. The semaphore done as a protected type is a good example, everyone knows the semantics of semaphores, so this example nicely illustrates how protected types work, but it is not intended to suggest that you should use semaphores for synchronization. There are other such examples in the RM. > You know, a reasonable guide. What's that > phrase? Oh yeah, a "style guide". No it is an international standard for the language. Not a style guide at all. > Because I think it's ludicrous to assume those > using the language manual, especially new users, > wouldn't assume that the "examples" weren't a > good style to follow. Well new users coming the RM often form peculiar conclusions because they do not understand the nature of a language standard. Indeed, precisely because the RM is (by comparison with some other standards) quite readable, they may indeed make the huge mistake of thinking it is something like an Ada text book :-) > I know later they could learn about style guides, > but if it were another part of the standard, maybe > the "Style Guide Annex" Not completely out of the question if there was a reasonable consensus on style, but there is not. For example, a fair number of style guides contain statements that "thou shalt not use feature XXXX ever". Clearly no "standard" style guide could have silly rules like that. > then we would have universal approach. Why not? > Many in the beginning didn't think we could get > this many people, from different countries, to > agree, within reason, on a programming language. A very odd claim. Where does it come from? Many programming languages have been standardized. The fact that a language is standardized does not mean that people agree it should be used for all purposes, or even for any purposes. I was there throughout the Ada standardization process, and I never heard anyone suggest that they did not think it would be possible to agree on a standard (after all it had been done many times before for programming languages). > I'm not sure about the "Since Ada attempts to > discourage the "copy principle,"" > part. I'm not sure where that comes from. >From a fundamental design point of view that dislikes redundancy in formal definitions. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/