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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5af5c381381ac5a7 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Warren Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada requires too much typing! Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:51:32 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <4bfd19ba$0$2362$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> <0620a415e6bbc1a5629e906e27bec5cb@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> Injection-Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:51:32 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx03.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9f8M0iN5t54V+4DF/iqO8g"; logging-data="23585"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WdiRopNFJWn/mpvbh3cLwZZv0YJ52a/o=" User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 X-Face: &6@]C2>ZS=NM|HE-^zWuryN#Z/2_.s9E|G&~DRi|sav9{E}XQJb*\_>=a5"q]\%A;5}LKP][1mA{gZ,Q!j Cancel-Lock: sha1:KuZ6tF4wqxeNX+EibXipcJx8lBQ= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12097 Date: 2010-05-27T19:51:32+00:00 List-Id: Fritz Wuehler expounded in news:0620a415e6bbc1a5629e906e27bec5cb@msgid.frell.theremailer.net: > Like anything you need to strike a balance. As many people know, Ada > was designed to be read. .. > > People mostly lack discipline and gravitate towards lazy practices. > C++ coders often call Ada (if they even hear about it) verbose. It's > silly, but I really don't care. It's their problem, not ours. Sloppy > code can be written in any language, and unfortunately it's proven in > practice. I don't mind C++ too much, until you start looking at "templates". To me, the "templates" idea seemed like a bag on the side to solve the generic problem. C/C++ already had substantial syntax up to that point. Then templates was shoe-horned into the compiler and the linker was mangled to make it all work. Even more, I find myself with a gag reflex whenever I look at STL use. Ada's generics are also somewhat tricky (the subject of generics is complex), but it seems an order of magnitude cleaner and simpler to understand. Certainly using instantiated code is far simpler. Also for the end reader, it is far easier to read, with generics. > Still, sloppy code in some languages is easier to understand > than others, but Ada makes it harder than average to write sloppy code > that's also wrong. One feature I love is the enumerated type in Ada. As long as you code each when clause in a case statement and avoid "when others =>", it makes extending an application a breeze. You can then add one new element to that enumerated type and then the compiler will point out every point in the project that needs your attention. > There's also the matter of aesthetics. Most programming languages > (especially C and Java and their offspring) are just ugly. I've been using C for almost my entire career. So when it is properly formatted, it doesn't look ugly to me. But I have seen a lot of ugly C/C++ code. The worst example was an XMODEM (I'm dating myself) program using macros to make the C code look like PASCAL!! It was macro'd to death. I finally ran it through cpp and refactored it, in order to make it useful. That original code probably still exists somewhere out on the net (maybe SIMTEL archives?) Scary that. I do find that reading someone else's Ada code is far breezier than C/C++/java code. IMO, C# has made it extra ugly with the new syntax embedded in it. I like Ada's sparse use of symbols (no {} or [] for example). > I prefer > ALGOL and its derivatives, in my view they're prettier, cleaner, and > better. To each his own, but don't expect me to read your crap if you > code it in C, C++, or Java! Perl is the worst. You'd have to pay me well to look at someone's perl code. ;-) Warren