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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	FREEMAIL_REPLYTO,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-04 11:35:11 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!elk.ncren.net!nntp.upenn.edu!msunews!not-for-mail
From: "Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Future with Ada
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:28:36 -0500
Organization: Michigan State University
Message-ID: <a60h46$1tqt$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
References: <mailman.1005328653.20306.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3wdH7.20135$xS6.32614@www.newsranger.com> <9tqete0gqc@drn.newsguy.com>
 <3C0924D6.2B5A3087@adaworks.com>
 <250220022121494455%thehouseofcards@remove.this.part.mac.com>
 <3C7B0B13.3080003@worldnet.att.net> <3C7D1C89.2000803@home.com>
 <mailman.1014918362.4599.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3C7E7CAD.7070504@mail.com> <3C7FB9D2.D9C6E055@boeing.com>
 <3C81DF1F.9000503@mail.com> <a5tmpv$aek$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <3C83A112.6080302@mail.com>
Reply-To: "Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: arctic.cse.msu.edu
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20780
Date: 2002-03-04T14:28:36-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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?
>