Re: Bad coding standards

["Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org>]

"Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil> wrote in message
news:B6A1A9B09E52D31183ED00A0C9E0888C469959@nctswashxchg.nctswash.navy.mil..
.
: -----Original Message-----
: From: Ken Garlington [mailto:Ken.Garlington@computer.org]
:
: > Because (a) that's not what it's intended to do, and (b) there are other
: > document that *are* intended for that purpose. Since Ada attempts to
: > discourage the "copy principle," it's not surprising that the ARM does
not
: > choose to be redundant with available style guides ;)
:
: Why not?   Seeing how the Ada Reference Manual is the "bible" of the Ada
: language, written by the founders (or "pillars") of the language.
Wouldn't
: it be reasonable to assume that the examples given in the reference
: manual would be written in a "good" style?

No. In fact, this practice is not limited to Ada *reference* documents.

"This quick reference guide for the Standard C programming language provides
all of the information you need to read and write programs in Standard C. It
describes all aspects of Standard C that are the same on all implementations
that conform to the standard for C. This is not a tutorial on Standard C nor
a lesson on how to write computer programs."

-- Plauger and Brodie, "Standard C." Microsoft Prcess, 1989.

 And as such, worthy of
: emulation,
: something to be followed?  You know, a reasonable guide.  What's that
: phrase?
: Oh yeah, a "style guide".
:
: Because I think it's ludicrous to assume those using the language manual,
: especially new users, wouldn't assume that the "examples" weren't a
: good style to follow.

I suppose "new users" may make all sorts of mistakes. For myself, when I
want to learn a new language, I don't normally start with the ISO standard
(assuming it exists). I get a textbook, or use an on-line resource. For
example:

http://www.adahome.com/Tutorials/Lovelace/lovelace.html

: I know later they could learn about style guides,
: but if it were another part of the standard, maybe the "Style Guide
: Annex", then we would have universal approach.  Why not?

I think your next sentence provides one reason -- why add additional work to
a process that already takes significant effort? The second reason relates
to what I would call "separation of concerns." Why mix a style guide in with
something that, within the limits of reasonableness, is supposed to
accurately specify a language? Finally, it's not clear that a style guide is
(or should be) intended to force a "universal approach." As noted in the SPC
guide: "Other guidelines presented in this book are intentionally phrased in
terms of design choices to consider. These guidelines cannot be instantiated
as hard-and-fast rules that a project must follow. For example, you should
not interpret Guidelines 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 to mean that a project is forbidden
to use tasks. Rather, these guidelines are intended to help the designer
make the tradeoffs between using protected objects and tasks, thus leading
the designer to make a more informed choice between these features."

: Many in the
: beginning didn't think we could get this many people, from different
: countries, to agree, within reason, on a programming language.

I don't know why "many" people would have felt that way. Certainly, Ada is
not the first internationally standardized language to be used widely. It's
not easy, but it's far from impossible.

: I'm not sure about the "Since Ada attempts to discourage the "copy
: principle,""
: part.  I'm not sure where that comes from.

IIRC, I first heard it in a speech given by Jean Ichbiah in Dallas in the
early 1980s. The idea is that doing manual "cut-and-paste" operations is
highly error prone. Therefore, you want a language that encourages
modularization and controlled parameterization (e.g. generics) as a more
reliable alternative.

: But, it seems to me reuse is the
: ultimate in the "copy principle" (more like condoned plagiarism), and the
: main point of the style guides (and by that I mean the style guide says
this
: is what we think is "good", do it this way).
:
: >>   "it has no impact on the operation or performance of the software,
just
: >> aesthetics."
: >
: > I might assume that the word "just" implies that aesthetics are less
: > important than operation or performance. As the ARM points out, the
design
: > of Ada is predicated in part on the idea that aesthetics are very
: important.
:
: Well, I can see where that could possibly happen.  Maybe I should
: have said "just the aesthetics".  If you look at the whole sentence:
:
: "Unless your talking about style guide issues that specify
: using "for loops" as opposed to a "slices", or using "case"
: statements instead of an "if" statements, then it has no
: impact on the operation or performance of the software, just
: aesthetics."
:
: The "just" in the sentence meant that outside the part of style
: guide that deals with structural issues, such as data structures,
: then your are left with just the aesthetic part.  I didn't mean
: to imply that I didn't think aesthetics were important, just
: subject to opinion.  If you didn't get my point in previous e-mails,
: I consider it an integral part of readability.  Unlike some who
: think readability and aesthetics form some type of dichotomy, or
: at least don't see the connection.
:
: Frank
:
:
: