TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: Michael Gilbert <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:55:03 +0100
Content-Disposition: inline
From: Paul Colin Gloster <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (19 lines)
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:42:31PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
"At 12:47 PM 11/29/2004, Harbaugh, John S wrote:
>[..]  Fully qualified dot naming, [..]
>all contribute to a mindset that values programs which read like
>structured English.

I agree with this to a point.  My one argument, though, is that people
(even Ada people) seem to ignore the use of fully-qualified names whenever
they can.  I find this "wordiness" to be one of the most useful aspects of
the language.  Nearly every time I download an example Ada program from the
net it seems to start with "with X; use X;", leading to potentially
confusing code.


I am also disappointed that Ada programmers often use use clauses.