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
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Joe Vlietstra <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:00:30 -0700
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To:
Joe Vlietstra <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
At 10:41 AM 10/9/98 CST, Phil Johnson ([log in to unmask]), wrote:
>> > Pro: Supports and encourages highly readable, maintainable code.
>> > Con: Verbose.
>>
>> I disagree.  Well-written C is almost as readable as typical Ada, and
>> neither is "verbose."  To me, "verbose" Ada is where the programmer
>> thinks a "meaningful name" for a variable or loop label is a full
>> English sentence.  The result makes the containing code almost as
>> hard to read as  most C code.
>
>I spent several years at Intergraph Corp. doing development support
>and several years before that porting third party applications to Unix.
>From that experience I find the term "Well Written C" to be somewhat
>of an oxymoron.  Only the most disciplined developers produced "well
>written C".  They were few and far between.

We have had great success finding software engineers who can produce
"well written C" -- engineers who have had previous experience in Ada.



Joseph P Vlietstra               [log in to unmask]
Aerojet Electronic Systems       [log in to unmask]
1100 West Hollyvale Street       (626) 812-2865
Azusa, CA 91702

ATOM RSS1 RSS2