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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable 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: 2000-12-13 18:34:15 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Beard, Frank" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Bad coding standards Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:32:55 -0500 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 976761250 26944 137.194.161.2 (14 Dec 2000 02:34:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:34:10 +0000 (UTC) To: "'comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org'" Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0beta5 Precedence: bulk List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3112 Date: 2000-12-13T21:32:55-05:00 I'm not saying coding standards/style guides are just aesthetics. Listen to me now. I'm saying that "outside" of coding standards that specify "which constructs to use" for given situations, you are now in the realm of aesthetics. I'm saying that: if success then runs no differently that if SUCCESS then or IF SUCCESS THEN It has no structural or runtime impact whatsoever. If you're talking about something like using a slice from an array as opposed to a "for loop", then it can have a structural and runtime impact. On VAX Ada it was faster to use a "for loop" than to use a slice because of the way they did range checking on the elements of the array. Readability (aesthetics) is a different issue. And I'm not saying readability is only aesthetics. To quote my American Heritage Dictionary: aesthetic - "In accordance with accepted notions of good taste or style". I may be taking some liberties with what they mean by style, but to say something is more readable, to me usually means it is more aesthetically pleasing. If it's not readable, it's not aesthetically pleasing. I don't care how artistic you make it. Nothing in ARM paragraphs 7-8 contradicts what I said. I agree with the paragraphs. I agree with the principle of readability and maintainability, but readability is subject to interpretation, preference, what is pleasing to read (dare I say it again - aesthetics), etc. Our style guide is very similar to the Ada LRM (you say ARM I say LRM. Which is more readably? Neither, their both cryptic.). Why don't you type out Ada Reference Manual? Doesn't ARM violate your style guide? Hmmm, another exception (ARM renames Ada_Reference_Manual). Why did the Ada95 LRM style change from the Ada83 LRM style? Hmmm, yet another exception. Is suddenly the Ada83 LRM style "bad"? Oh, the poor souls who got trapped under the Ada83 style. Have they yet to see the salvation of the Ada95 style? Will Ada0x change yet again? Who's right, who's wrong? Why doesn't the Ada standard specify the style as well, so that we're all writing to the same coding standard, if it is that crucial and people have such poignant opinions about it? Frank -----Original Message----- From: Ken Garlington [mailto:Ken.Garlington@computer.org] : : Ouch! "Just aesthetics?" See ARM, Introduction, paragraphs 7-8 for a : contrary position. : : _______________________________________________ comp.lang.ada mailing list comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada