home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!news!nosc!visicom!rlk
- From: rlk@VisiCom.COM (Bob Kitzberger)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
- Subject: Re: FORTRAN bug(was Re: C++ vs. Ada -- Is Ada loosing?)
- Message-ID: <251@visicom.com>
- Date: 12 Dec 92 06:04:13 GMT
- References: <EACHUS.92Dec7184734@oddjob.mitre.org> <1992Dec8.072300.21473@smds.com> <1992Dec8.172551.16780@newshost.lanl.gov> <1992Dec9.060218.23940@seas.gwu.edu> <1992Dec11.132942.24054@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <OBRY.92Dec11164203@cheesesteak.flash.bellcore.com>
- Sender: news@VisiCom.COM
- Lines: 27
-
- obry@flash.bellcore.com (Pascal Obry) writes:
-
-
- >I like Ada because you can *read* it. And this seem to be one of the most
- >important thing about a language. With goods choices for the identifier, you
- >can read an Ada progam like a text, you don't have to translate what you read.
-
- It is rare that I feel that Ada code is too verbose. One of the instances
- that comes to mind is the syntax for representation specifications, which
- basically require duplicating the type definition just to provide the repspec.
- For hundreds of lines of type specifications (e.g. a protocol definition)
- the doubling of line count hinders maintenance (i.e. each change to a
- data structure requires at least two changes: one in the type definition,
- and one in the rep spec.) OH well.
-
- What is much, much more frustrating are the verbose, useless commenting
- standards that one often finds on DoD projects. What was once a
- simple subprogram specification, with descriptive identifer names,
- too often becomes a morass of useless information, often several
- screens full of junk that some DoD or corporate coding standard requires.
- Grrrrr.
-
- .Bob.
- ----------------
- Bob Kitzberger VisiCom Laboratories, Inc.
- rlk@visicom.com 10052 Mesa Ridge Court, San Diego CA 92121 USA
- +1 619 457 2111 FAX +1 619 457 0888
-