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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52fd60a337c05842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-15 14:52:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!xmission!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-maxim!propagator-maxim!news-in.spamkiller.net!news02.tsnz.net!newsfeed01.tsnz.net!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail From: "AG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: ada paper critic X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 09:54:13 +1200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.55.38.202 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1024177964 210.55.38.202 (Sun, 16 Jun 2002 09:52:44 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 09:52:44 NZST Organization: Xtra Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26041 Date: 2002-06-16T09:54:13+12:00 List-Id: "Alderson, Paul A." wrote in message news:mailman.1024065183.4624.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org... > Immanuel, > > If you look at just the language then I'd have to say Ada programs are less > readable than C or C++ programs. I'm not talking about just style either, > but the actual syntax of the language. For example: > > Ada code: > > MY_BIG_BLOATED_PACKAGE_NAME.MY_BIG_BLOATED_VARIABLE_NAME := > MY_OTHER_BIG_BLOATED_PACKAGE_NAME.MY_BIG_BLOATED_ARRAY_OR_FUNCTION(MY_BIG_BL > OATED_GLOBAL_LIT_PACKAGE.AND_OF_COURSE_A_BIG_BLOATED_LITERAL); > > C code: > > (for an array) > nDaysInMonth = nMonthTable[JAN]; > > (for a function) > nDaysInMonth = nMonthLookup(JAN); > > The main point here is that the Ada code above requires one to go and lookup > what MY_BIG_BLOATED_ARRAY_OR_FUNCTION is. Is it a function or an array? And the point is - who cares? As long as it does what it's suposed to do it could be a wigget or whatever. Insisting on an artificial distiction is counter-productive. Suppose, somewhere down the line, you decide that what used to be an array now needs some more logic so needs to be implemented as a function. So, what do you do with all the references that assumed it's an array? Yuck... [Besides, it's a cheap trick to use all capitals and ridiculous names in the language you don't like and some reasonable stuff in the language you do. How about ... MY_BIG_BLOATED_AND_TOTALLY_UNREADABLE_NDAYSINMONTH = etc etc etc] > Who knows? The other not so subtle point is that Ada programs tend to use > very large variable names. Ever read a VB program of any size?