From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:6a01:: with SMTP id x1mr523620iog.77.1559806168673; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 00:29:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aca:d746:: with SMTP id o67mr11422027oig.157.1559806168420; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 00:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!g15no146840itd.0!news-out.google.com!l126ni124itl.0!nntp.google.com!i64no148074iti.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 00:29:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=165.225.84.81; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.225.84.81 References: <28facad3-c55f-4ef2-8ef8-004925b7d1f1@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why .ads as well as .adb? From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 07:29:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56494 Date: 2019-06-06T00:29:28-07:00 List-Id: > > This style is promoted by all industrial coding standards (both > > C and C++ language standards examples, MISRA-C, JSF, HICPP, AUTOSAR, > > ...), so I don't get the argument about "rarity". > > > > Actually, I don't even know where to find something different. >=20 > The two most common layouts for C code are: [...] Of course. But as pointed above, the vertically-aligned braces are promoted= by all industrial coding standards and are used in code examples of the la= nguage standards themselves. And I see them in classic books. And I see the= m in major open source code bases. Hence my comment about the argument that "most" C code is smushed together.= I just don't see that. (But I know Java coders who, when forced to put the= ir dignity aside, would actually write C code this way.) In either case (in both styles) the argument that "Ada's comb" is superior = is just not convincing. Which might explain why every new programming langu= age either adopts C-style braces or resigns from distinct bracketing altoge= ther. The subsequent argument that the whole world is idiots would not be c= onvincing, either - this apparently is an inherent property of our visual s= ystem that delimiters need be visible enough to be noticed, but should not = dominate over the actual (delimited) content. Note: sentences are delimited by dots. Just like the sentence you are readi= ng right now. And parts are delimited by commas, just like, you know, the p= arts of this very sentence. And it worked for ages. And we are used to it so much that we would refuse = anything different. Why? Because our very brains are wired exactly to expect that. Do you think it would be better to have delimiters and separators that areQ= WERTY you knowQWERTY so bigQWERTY that they take significant part of the sp= aceQWERTY with huge terminatorsQWERTY tooQWERTY so that we can see them bet= terASDFGHJ? I don't think soASDFGHJ. ;-) --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com