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: 103376,81cf52699486abe7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Preben Randhol Subject: Re: Ada95 Strengths/Weaknesses. Date: 1999/09/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 530274373 References: <37EED7B8.245C0054@yukyonline.co.yuky> <37EF9B98.7F817CC0@pwfl.com> <7sqb4r$15d$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no X-Trace: kopp.stud.ntnu.no 938523725 14381 129.241.83.82 (28 Sep 1999 13:02:05 GMT) Organization: ProgramVareVerkstedet NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Sep 1999 13:02:05 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-09-28T13:02:05+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: | Again, not necessarily a bad thing if it makes the code | easier to read. True. Most bugs are discovered _reading_ through the source code rather than just testing the software. If one can read the code like a "book" it should be far easier to spot bugs than a language that has intricate syntactic rules. One language that is hard to read is Perl IMHO. C++ isn't easy either. One of the specification of the Ada language was that it should be easy to read (if I am not very mistaken). -- Preben Randhol [randhol@pvv.org] [http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/] "If you had just boarded an airliner and discovered that your team of programmers had been responsible for the flight control software, how many of you would disembark immediately?" -- unknown