TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:22:05 -0500
X-To:
Reply-To:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (10 lines)
> If we're arguing about syntax, it is tantamount to a religious
> discussion.  One can write good or bad software in any language.  The
> semantics of the language will have the greatest impact on how easy or
> hard this is to accomplish.  The syntax mostly impacts how pretty the
> program looks in the long run.

To some extent, yes.  However, syntax that promotes confusion (or rewards
errors by changing the semantics instead of rejecting them) does more
damage than merely looking ugly.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2