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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY autolearn=no 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: 2000-12-14 06:03:34 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!news.flash.net!not-for-mail From: "Ken Garlington" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: Bad coding standards 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: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:03:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.215.81.40 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flash.net X-Trace: news.flash.net 976802613 216.215.81.40 (Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:03:33 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:03:33 CST Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3127 Date: 2000-12-14T14:03:33+00:00 List-Id: "Beard, Frank" wrote in message news:B6A1A9B09E52D31183ED00A0C9E0888C469951@nctswashxchg.nctswash.navy.mil : 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? Sure - and as several people have pointed out in the past, the ARM isn't intended to be an easy-to-read explanation of the language for new users, nor a description of best practices. It's intended to be a technical reference for people who already understand the langauge. That's why there are both (a) highly readable textbooks for people learning the language and (b) the AARM, which provides even more arcane details for compiler writers, etc. So, this is a straw man argument. : 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"? Not "suddenly" - It was _always_ bad :). The Ada95 manual is slightly better, but again someone who uses it as the basis for a project's style guide (instead of, for example, the SPC "Ada Quality and Style Guide"!) is probably making a mistake. : 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? 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 ;) Of course, my point had nothing to do with which style is _best_. People can reasonably differ on that question. My point is that readability, and aesthetics in general, matters a great deal if you're a professional software engineer. For example, if someone were to say: "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.