RE: Bad coding standards

["Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Garlington [mailto:Ken.Garlington@computer.org]

> Because (a) that's not what it's intended to do, and (b) there are other
> document that *are* intended for that purpose. Since Ada attempts to
> discourage the "copy principle," it's not surprising that the ARM does not
> choose to be redundant with available style guides ;)

Why not?   Seeing how the Ada Reference Manual is the "bible" of the Ada
language, written by the founders (or "pillars") of the language.  Wouldn't
it be reasonable to assume that the examples given in the reference
manual would be written in a "good" style?  And as such, worthy of
emulation,
something to be followed?  You know, a reasonable guide.  What's that
phrase?
Oh yeah, a "style guide".

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.  I know later they could learn about style guides,
but if it were another part of the standard, maybe the "Style Guide
Annex", 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.

I'm not sure about the "Since Ada attempts to discourage the "copy
principle,""
part.  I'm not sure where that comes from.  But, it seems to me reuse is the
ultimate in the "copy principle" (more like condoned plagiarism), and the
main point of the style guides (and by that I mean the style guide says this
is what we think is "good", do it this way).


>>   "it has no impact on the operation or performance of the software, just
>> aesthetics."
>
> I might assume that the word "just" implies that aesthetics are less
> important than operation or performance. As the ARM points out, the design
> of Ada is predicated in part on the idea that aesthetics are very
important.

Well, I can see where that could possibly happen.  Maybe I should
have said "just the aesthetics".  If you look at the whole sentence:

"Unless your talking about style guide issues that specify
using "for loops" as opposed to a "slices", or using "case"
statements instead of an "if" statements, then it has no
impact on the operation or performance of the software, just
aesthetics."

The "just" in the sentence meant that outside the part of style
guide that deals with structural issues, such as data structures,
then your are left with just the aesthetic part.  I didn't mean
to imply that I didn't think aesthetics were important, just
subject to opinion.  If you didn't get my point in previous e-mails,
I consider it an integral part of readability.  Unlike some who
think readability and aesthetics form some type of dichotomy, or
at least don't see the connection.

Frank