Re: [Q] Tools for Ada Quality and Style

[dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

Peter said

"If I understand you correctly here, it would perhaps be best to use/provide
tools that encourage the chosen style to be easily implemented at the
point of entry by the programmer rather than providing a 'clean-up'
utility after the fact. Such a tool is Language Sensistive Editting a la
DEC's LSE editor. It reduces program entry (largely) to "filling in the
blanks" ie the program structures are generated automatically (minimal
keystrokes anyway) by the editor and the programmer basically types in
the variable names and chooses the appropriate code structures along the
way. I have used LSE on an Ada project and provided I stuck to using the
language templates I had no style problems or semantic errors. Please do
not confuse the method that DEC have chosen for LSE'ing with the
"primitive" method provide by the Emacs ada-mode, DEC's method is far
superior and easier to use."

Such tools, to help entry, are found useful by many people. I find them
annoying and completely useless, they just intefere with my typing
speed. If I have to use one, I prefer Emacs ada-mode to DEC's LSE approach.

It's never very helpful to say "xxx method is far superior and easier to
use". Instead say "I find xxx method superior and easier to use". The point
is that different people have very different tastes in this area. Personally
I find the filling-in-the-blanks style clumsy and intolerable, but I am
perfectly happy to encourage people to give various tools a try. Find out
what works best for you and use it. One of the nice things about open
systems, where you assemble your own tool set is that you can find the
tools that best suit your style. FOr me I prefer a completely non-intrusive
editor. Other people like an editor which complains to them about errors
as they are entered. To each their own!

But yes, such tools are entirely consistent with the phiolosophy I
was encouraging which is that software should be prepared so that
it meets coding standards in the first place, using whatever tools
the programmer finds convenient -- rather than using after the fact
pretty printers. For one thing, pretty printers almost always molest
comments in less than an optimal manner. Programmers should have an
aesthetic sense of the layout of their program including layout
of comments, and this cannot be achieed with simple minded tools
alone.