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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 26 May 93 20:56:57 GMT
From: news.crd.ge.com!e7sa!groleau@uunet.uu.net  (Wes Groleau X7574)
Subject: Re: good software engineering (was: mixing integer and logical ops)
Message-ID: <C7nJIx.3n7@crdnns.crd.ge.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <EACHUS.93May26115049@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre.org (R
obert I. Eachus) writes:
>     I've always thought that one of the major advantages of Ada was
>that it makes bad code look so bad that the author fixes it, often
>before anyone else sees it.  To really appreciate this, notice how
>many of the Ada 9X revision requests reduce to "I know that it is
>possible to do what I want like this:...  but that is too ugly to
>use."
>...... and redefined equality operators.  But the point is that I
>cannot imagine someone writing a similar revision request about C.

I think the reason is not that Ada makes it easier to spot "bad code"
Rather, IMHO, it's that the "Ada community" has from the beginning
had an attitude in favor of "pretty" and readable source code.  The
C community on the other hand is unsuccessfully trying to change a
culture that EXPECTS code to be unreadable.