Re: ada paper critic

Re: ada paper critic

[Gautier no_direct_reply_please]

>Alderson, Paul A. wrote:

>>    MY_BIG_BLOATED_PACKAGE_NAME.MY_BIG_BLOATED_VARIABLE_NAME :=
>>MY_OTHER_BIG_BLOATED_PACKAGE_NAME.MY_BIG_BLOATED_ARRAY_OR_FUNCTION(MY_BIG_BLOATED_GLOBAL_LIT_PACKAGE.AND_OF_COURSE_A_BIG_BLOATED_LITERAL);

Andrew Maizels:

>Yeah, this sucks.  And having to haul in a dozen different packages to do 
>anything useful sucks too.

Let's add that this not the typical style or a required syntax
of Ada, but bad habits of programmers who were accustomed
to punched cards, capital letters, PDP-8 machines and were
resticted to program in FORTRAN-66 or C in their youth.
________________________________________________________
Gautier  --  http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/gsoft.htm

NB: For a direct answer, address on the Web site!


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Re: ada paper critic

[Simon Wright]

"Gautier no_direct_reply_please" <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> writes:

> >Alderson, Paul A. wrote:
> 
> >>    MY_BIG_BLOATED_PACKAGE_NAME.MY_BIG_BLOATED_VARIABLE_NAME :=
> >>MY_OTHER_BIG_BLOATED_PACKAGE_NAME.MY_BIG_BLOATED_ARRAY_OR_FUNCTION(MY_BIG_BLOATED_GLOBAL_LIT_PACKAGE.AND_OF_COURSE_A_BIG_BLOATED_LITERAL);
> 
> Andrew Maizels:
> 
> > Yeah, this sucks.  And having to haul in a dozen different packages
> > to do anything useful sucks too.
> 
> Let's add that this not the typical style or a required syntax
> of Ada, but bad habits of programmers who were accustomed
> to punched cards, capital letters, PDP-8 machines and were
> resticted to program in FORTRAN-66 or C in their youth.

People who used PDP-8s with ASR33s as the sole I/O device didn't tend
to develop habits like this! It would have been just too much work and
time .. terseness was important.

I admit the ALL CAPS part, though. Until I saw the light in about 1982.

Re: ada paper critic

[Robert A Duff]

"Gautier no_direct_reply_please" <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> writes:

> Let's add that this not the typical style or a required syntax
> of Ada, but bad habits of programmers who were accustomed
> to punched cards, capital letters, PDP-8 machines and were
> resticted to program in FORTRAN-66 or C in their youth.

ALL_CAPS *was* the recommended style for Ada 83.
So it doesn't go back to punch cards and the like.

Fortunately, in Ada 95, the recommended style is Not_All_Caps.

- Bob

Re: ada paper critic

[AG]

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:wccadpwb1dw.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> "Gautier no_direct_reply_please" <gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Let's add that this not the typical style or a required syntax
> > of Ada, but bad habits of programmers who were accustomed
> > to punched cards, capital letters, PDP-8 machines and were
> > resticted to program in FORTRAN-66 or C in their youth.
>
> ALL_CAPS *was* the recommended style for Ada 83.
> So it doesn't go back to punch cards and the like.
>

Sorry, could you comment on this a bit more?
I know it was a stated requirement that any
program *can* be written in all capitals, but
recommended?

Re: ada paper critic

[Ted Dennison]

Robert A Duff wrote:
> ALL_CAPS *was* the recommended style for Ada 83.
> So it doesn't go back to punch cards and the like.

By whom? We never used all caps on any of the 4 large Ada 83 projects I 
worked on. Since the first one was the first project anyone there had 
ever done in Ada, and mixed case was in the project standard, I have to 
think we got it from somewhere else.

Re: ada paper critic

[Robert A Duff]

Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> writes:

> Robert A Duff wrote:
> > ALL_CAPS *was* the recommended style for Ada 83.
> > So it doesn't go back to punch cards and the like.
> 
> By whom?

The Ada 83 Reference Manual recommended all caps for identifiers,
and lower case for reserved words.  The fact that *something* was
supposed to be in lower case indicates that they weren't concerned about
devices incapable of doing lower case.

>... We never used all caps on any of the 4 large Ada 83 projects I 
> worked on.

Neither did I.  All caps is so ugly that a lot of people ignored the RM
advice.  However, I was a consultant at Alsys (Jean Ichbiah's company)
for a while, and they used ALL_CAPS identifiers as recommended by the
Standard, so of course I conformed to that style while there.

I believe I've read studies that show mixed case and lower case to be
more readable than all caps.  The reason, they speculated, is that the
shape of a word in all caps is a simple rectangle, whereas the shape of
a word in lower case has ascenders and descenders that help one
recognize the word by its shape.  I can't give a cite (sorry) -- this
was many years ago.

>... Since the first one was the first project anyone there had 
> ever done in Ada, and mixed case was in the project standard, I have to 
> think we got it from somewhere else.

- Bob

Re: ada paper critic

[Kevin Cline]

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<wccn0turfmp.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>...
> Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> 
> > Robert A Duff wrote:
> > > ALL_CAPS *was* the recommended style for Ada 83.
> > > So it doesn't go back to punch cards and the like.
> > 
> > By whom?
> 
> The Ada 83 Reference Manual recommended all caps for identifiers,
> and lower case for reserved words.  The fact that *something* was
> supposed to be in lower case indicates that they weren't concerned about
> devices incapable of doing lower case.
> 
> >... We never used all caps on any of the 4 large Ada 83 projects I 
> > worked on.
> 
> Neither did I.  All caps is so ugly that a lot of people ignored the RM
> advice.  However, I was a consultant at Alsys (Jean Ichbiah's company)
> for a while, and they used ALL_CAPS identifiers as recommended by the
> Standard, so of course I conformed to that style while there.
> 
> I believe I've read studies that show mixed case and lower case to be
> more readable than all caps.  The reason, they speculated, is that the
> shape of a word in all caps is a simple rectangle, whereas the shape of
> a word in lower case has ascenders and descenders that help one
> recognize the word by its shape.  I can't give a cite (sorry) -- this
> was many years ago.

I don't need a study to tell me that.  ALL I NEED IS A SHORT TEXT SAMPLE
LIKE THIS ONE AND IT BECOMES QUITE OBVIOUS that mixed case is much easier
to read.

Re: ada paper critic

[Marin David Condic]

The Ada83 reference manual tended to use all caps for identifiers - not
exactly a "recommendation" but it was the fashionable thing to do (mimmic
the LRM). And its really important to remember that as Ada was emerging into
the light of day, there was still a lot of equipment out in the world that
didn't support lower case. (Line printers being a common example.) Hence it
was quite common at that time for programs in other languages (like Fortran
and Cobol) to be all upper case. Ada style back then was just a reflection
of what was commonly done elsewhere. (To this day, C fashion for things
created with #define is to use all caps.)

But just as women's clothing fashions change on a regular basis, so to do
coding styles. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"AG" <a_n_g@x_t_r_a.c_o.n_z> wrote in message
news:M4RO8.4709$iR2.423709@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> Sorry, could you comment on this a bit more?
> I know it was a stated requirement that any
> program *can* be written in all capitals, but
> recommended?
>
>

Re: ada paper critic

[Robert A Duff]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:

> The Ada83 reference manual tended to use all caps for identifiers - not
> exactly a "recommendation"

Hey, you're right.  I must have been thinking of RM83-1.5(13), which
makes a specific recommendation about indentation style.  But I don't
see any recommended casing style (other than the fact that they use a
certain style).

>... but it was the fashionable thing to do (mimmic
> the LRM). And its really important to remember that as Ada was emerging into
> the light of day, there was still a lot of equipment out in the world that
> didn't support lower case. (Line printers being a common example.)

But that can't explain it, because they used lower-case boldface for
reserved words.

Some of those printers *could* support boldface, by backspacing and
overprinting. ;-)

By the way, is it true that Algol 60 and/or Algol 68 was font-sensitive
(i.e. "reserved words" are distinguished by being in boldface)?

- Bob

Re: ada paper critic

[Darren New]

Robert A Duff wrote:
> By the way, is it true that Algol 60 and/or Algol 68 was font-sensitive
> (i.e. "reserved words" are distinguished by being in boldface)?

If I remember correctly, Algol distinguished "the program you see in the
listing" from "the program the compiler compiles." Kind of like "real" algol
is XML, and you could apply different style sheets depending on whether you
were printing it or what. In theory, the reserved words could even be in a
different language.

I suspect what you're thinking is the recommendation that when printed,
reserved words should be printed in boldface. The compilers never required
different fonts. (That was for APL. ;-)

-- 
Darren New 
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
** http://home.san.rr.com/dnew/DNResume.html **
** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ **

     My brain needs a "back" button so I can
         remember where I left my coffee mug.

Re: ada paper critic

[Jeffrey Carter]

Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
> By the way, is it true that Algol 60 and/or Algol 68 was font-sensitive
> (i.e. "reserved words" are distinguished by being in boldface)?

I've never used A68, but I knew someone who used it in the early 1980s
who explained that keywords were somehow distinguishable from other
identifiers. In text this difference was boldface, so calling the
difference "font" seems as good as any. In practice, the compiler
required the keywords to be marked somehow to indicate that they were in
the keyword representation. I don't recall the actual details of how
they were marked. Sorry.

Other things I recall:

The programmer could declare new infix operators. This seemed like a lot
of work for the programmer, and no doubt for the compiler writer.

What Ada calls "type" A68 called "mode". I'm not sure what that was
supposed to mean. "Type" seems better, though still not great, since
usually declaring a type in Ada requires more than just the type
declaration.

These are remarks by an ignorant non-A68 user, so weigh them
appropriately.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I unclog my nose towards you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Re: ada paper critic

[Robert A Duff]

kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline) writes:

> I don't need a study to tell me that.  ALL I NEED IS A SHORT TEXT SAMPLE
> LIKE THIS ONE AND IT BECOMES QUITE OBVIOUS that mixed case is much easier
> to read.

Looks that way to me, too.  But that proves nothing except that you and
I are used to mixed case.

- Bob

Re: ada paper critic

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <wcck7owxq8i.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>, Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
> kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline) writes:
> 
>> I don't need a study to tell me that.  ALL I NEED IS A SHORT TEXT SAMPLE
>> LIKE THIS ONE AND IT BECOMES QUITE OBVIOUS that mixed case is much easier
>> to read.
> 
> Looks that way to me, too.  But that proves nothing except that you and
> I are used to mixed case.

When I have my way, I use uppercase identifiers lowercase keywords,
and mixed case comments.

My reasons are the same as yours.  The mixed case attracts the reader,
and I want the attraction to be to the comments, where the non-obvious
is stated.

Re: ada paper critic

[Rod Haper]

Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
>>By the way, is it true that Algol 60 and/or Algol 68 was font-sensitive
>>(i.e. "reserved words" are distinguished by being in boldface)?
> 
> 
> I've never used A68, but I knew someone who used it in the early 1980s
> who explained that keywords were somehow distinguishable from other
> identifiers. In text this difference was boldface, so calling the
> difference "font" seems as good as any. In practice, the compiler
> required the keywords to be marked somehow to indicate that they were in
> the keyword representation. I don't recall the actual details of how
> they were marked. Sorry.
> 
> Other things I recall:
> 
> The programmer could declare new infix operators. This seemed like a lot
> of work for the programmer, and no doubt for the compiler writer.
> 
> What Ada calls "type" A68 called "mode". I'm not sure what that was
> supposed to mean. "Type" seems better, though still not great, since
> usually declaring a type in Ada requires more than just the type
> declaration.
> 
> These are remarks by an ignorant non-A68 user, so weigh them
> appropriately.
> 


Ah, ALGOL 60, now that brings many very fond memories back to mind.  I 
was fortunate enough to have learned ALOGL 60 as my programming "mother 
tongue" back in the "dark ages" of 1966 on the Burrough's B5500 (a 
wonderfull machine and more very fond memories).  I still have my copy 
of "a guide to ALGOL programming" by Daniel McCracken, 1962.  It uses 
bold type to distinguish ALGOL reserved words from identifier words 
although the convention was to underline them which I recall doing in 
hand-written code.  McCracken notes that on some implementations you 
could use the same name for an identifier as an ALGOL reserved word if 
the ALGOL reserved word is set off by distinguishing marks such as 
quotes or dollar signs so that there is no confusion - ala, 'true' and 
true and $while$ and while.  I don't recall ever doing this on the B5500 
but the $ sign usage does ring a bell - aleit very faintly after all 
these years - we almost certainly would have avoided this practice.  As 
for declaring new infix operators, that must have been a part of ALGOL 
68 which, saddly, I never had an opportunity to use.

-- 
Rod

+----------------------------------+
|     There is a better way ...    |
|   LAP => Linux + Ada95 + Python  |
+----------------------------------+

lowercase, was Re: ada paper critic

[David Thompson]

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote :
> "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:
> > ... And its really important to remember that as Ada was emerging into
> > the light of day, there was still a lot of equipment out in the world that
> > didn't support lower case. (Line printers being a common example.)
>
An example, but uppercase-only (monocase) terminals were
AIR a (much) more common issue.  And I never saw a dualcase
keypunch, although there were "Hollerith" (card) codes defined
for lowercase.  It was not uncommon to (need to) enter escape
sequences or commands in monocase input and thereby
(be able) to get nice dualcase output on the printer.

> But that can't explain it, because [ARM83] used lower-case boldface for
> reserved words.
>
> Some of those printers *could* support boldface, by backspacing and
> overprinting. ;-)
>
_Line_ printers can't backspace.  Instead they print without advancing
the paper, allowing overprint.  In the "ASA" printer control associated
with FORTRAN (but used other places also) where the first "column"
of each line is a printer control character, '+' indicates overprint.
Line printers using character-serial interfaces usually used CR,
i.e. all first characters CR-no-LF all overlay characters CR LF.

MDC went on to say:
> .... (To this day, C fashion for things
> created with #define is to use all caps.)

_Most_ #define'd things, yes.  (Not, for example, macro versions
of library functions.)  But of course this is precisely because
nearly everything else in C is lowercase or mixed-mostly-lower,
and so upper-only glaringly stands out.

--
- David.Thompson 1 now at worldnet.att.net

Re: lowercase, was Re: ada paper critic

[Marin David Condic]

There are always those who scoff at fashion and boldly proclaim their own
sense of style. :-) Its not that there are any hard and fast "rules" about
such things - just what people are used to seeing and what seems to be
appropriate or what everyone else appears to be doing. Like any fashion,
these things are subject to change when the fashion-makers in the world
start doing something different & their admirers emulate it.

I wonder what J-Lo uses for character case when she writes Ada code? :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"David Thompson" <david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:m0vS8.55744$LC3.4302904@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> MDC went on to say:
> > .... (To this day, C fashion for things
> > created with #define is to use all caps.)
>
> _Most_ #define'd things, yes.  (Not, for example, macro versions
> of library functions.)  But of course this is precisely because
> nearly everything else in C is lowercase or mixed-mostly-lower,
> and so upper-only glaringly stands out.
>