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: 103376,1ea19776e3073a96
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: C/C++ programmer giving Ada95 a chance -- writing an emulator.
Date: 2000/03/29
Message-ID: <wcc3dp9r8as.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 603940179
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <38e148e2.5089627@news.shreve.net>
 <38e19656.17008608@news.shreve.net> <8bs49i$baq1@news.cis.okstate.edu>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-03-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner) writes:

> >Just a note about the RM95 -- who wrote this stuff?  My head hurts
> >reading this!!!  Ouch!   :)
> 
> You do realize probably half the authors of the RM95 are reading this
> message? :-)

Yes, but most of them (including me) are not so quick to take offense.
;-)

Besides, I *agree* that the RM95 is head-hurting reading.  The goal of a
standard (IMHO) is uniformity across implementations, and that (sadly)
seems to require unreadable prose.

Anyway, as several people have pointed out, the original poster should
put the RM95 away for now, and read a textbook first.

>... Honestly, I've found the RM95 pretty easy reading
> compared to some of the other standards I've tried to read.

You're unusual.  Most people find the Ada 83 RM more readable than RM95.
Except compiler writers, who *have* to care about all the odd corners.

> (ISO 7185: Basic Pascal comes to mind as a fairly painful standard.)

- Bob