Ada requires too much typing!
in [ADA]
|
Prev: Lost in translation (with SPARK user rules)
Next: Sockets package in SPARK (Was: Lost in translation (with SPARK user rules))
From: Ludovic Brenta on 26 May 2010 12:12 Peter Hermann wrote on comp.lang.ada: > Ludovic Brenta <ludo...(a)ludovic-brenta.org> wrote: > > Like I said earlier: sloppy programmers avoid Ada, therefore Ada helps > > avoid sloppy programmers. > > > -- > > Ludovic Brenta. > > (-:www.ihr.uni-stuttgart.de/fileadmin/user_upload/autoren/ph/ada/resourc... > :-) > > Ludovic: should I remove the "to"? Yes, you should. And thanks for making believe I'm famous :) -- Ludovic Brenta.
From: Georg Bauhaus on 26 May 2010 13:20 On 26.05.10 14:57, Peter C. Chapin wrote: > One of the people on that group posted this comment related to the fact that > Java requires public/private access specifiers on methods whereas Scala uses > public by default. Thus in the "common" case of a public method you don't > have to type the word 'public'... In this particular case of writing "public" or not, there is an interesting point. If you allow defaults, then omitting access specifiers should mean "public", not anything else. The reason is that this default forces programmers to get their publicly announced subprograms right, semantically, to be called by just anyone. Ideally, of course. I don't know whether lazy use of a keyboard enables programmers to use the few seconds to get the interface right. Ada in a sense makes specifying access (syntactically) simpler: everything before "private" is public, without mention. That leaves a question: is specifying access using visibility rules and child packages artistry? ;-) Anyway, if understanding text requires more than linear reading, there are arguments in favor of conciseness. UML or any other "bird's eye view" tool show the usefulness of seeing relations between pieces of source text in one place.
From: Pascal Obry on 26 May 2010 14:57 Ludovic, > Like I said earlier: sloppy programmers avoid Ada, therefore Ada helps > avoid sloppy programmers. Agreed 100%, that's probably the easiest way to attract only sane programmers on your project :) I've done that, it works! Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net - http://v2p.fr.eu.org --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B
From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) on 26 May 2010 15:30 Le Wed, 26 May 2010 15:29:31 +0200, Ludovic Brenta <ludovic(a)ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit: > Also interesting is his word "coding". In his mind, Java and Scala are > both for "coding", not for "writing" or "designing" or "explaining" a > program. We meet on this feeling : we should be writing, not coding (âcodingâ, this word hearts my eyes/hears) Was pleasant to read this :) -- There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) on 26 May 2010 15:33
Le Wed, 26 May 2010 19:20:00 +0200, Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus(a)futureapps.de> a écrit: > Anyway, if understanding text requires more than linear > reading, there are arguments in favor of conciseness. > UML or any other "bird's eye view" tool show the usefulness > of seeing relations between pieces of source text in one place. Did you ever heard about Literate Programming ? What do you think about it in this area ? (possibly with editor support for that) -- There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check. |