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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,15890893c0618a8a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: [Q] Tools for Ada Quality and Style Date: 1996/04/30 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 152228910 references: <9604172134.AA27114@eight-ball> <767968529wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk> <4ltjat$dao@parlor.hiwaay.net> <4m3ouj$b0p@inferno.mpx.com.au> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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.