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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 27 May 93 22:24:14 GMT From: eachus@mitre-bedford.arpa (Robert I. Eachus) Subject: Re: good software engineering (was: mixing integer and logical ops) Message-ID: List-Id: In article <27MAY199312323696@bambam.gsfc.nasa.gov> nbssal@bambam.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephe Leake) writes: Wes Groleau 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. > Robert I. Eachus writes: >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. Whoops! The attributions are backwards! Stephen Leake said: > I'll go with Wes; I've always found that if Ada makes me work to > hard to do what I think I want to do, there is usually a better > way, or I don't really want to do it. Put another way, if you find > yourself writing inelegant Ada code, take a step back and think the > problem thru again. Maybe peruse the LRM; some feature of Ada that > you had temporarily forgotten about might jump and suggest a better > approach. So I think Stephen is trying to agree with me here. However, Wes's position is fairly close to mine, so I'm not 100% sure. This is starting to remind me of the nature vs. nurture argument, or maybe the chicken and the egg... -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...