Re: Future with Ada

["Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>]

The problem is you are addressing each symbol independently from the
language as a whole.  For example, which of the following looks more
incorrect (barring some syntax adjustments).

if (x == y) {
   cout << "We can use either.";
   z = 2 * x; }

-or-

if (x ==y ) begin
   cout << "We can use either.";
   z = 2 * x; end

The second looks much worse than the first, and note that neither is
accomplishing its objective of highlighting the if's block.  In the first
example, though, the {}'s almost disappear while the begin and end's scream
that they are being misused.

I wasn't trying to claim that every feature of a curly braced language needs
an introduction and explanation.  I was stating that 'concise' statements
such as

x = z << w = t ? x : y;

need an introduction and an explanation.  Thus, the curly braced languages'
'conciseness' which is so often a flagship of their religious propaganda of
superiority appears to be a liability instead of an asset.

I don't think either of us really wants to start a religious discussion on
either of the types of languages, but I do think the differences and goals
of the two languages can be compared reasonably.

-CRM

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3C83A112.6080302@mail.com...
> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> > The problem is that they do not make good teaching material without the
> > accompaniment of an introduction and explanation.
>
> I find it difficult to believe that { } needs an introduction and
> explanation that begin/end or if/end do not. On the other hand,
> braces are light and airy and nicely set off and separate pieces
> of program text which are more wordy, guiding the eye towards seeing
> the structure of the code.
>
> It's a religious issue, and a matter of taste. How many times, after
> all, has this topic been discussed in the past?
>