Re: Ada Popularity: Comparison of Ada/Charles with C++ STL (and Perl)

[Eric Jacoboni <jaco@neottia.net>]

kevin.cline@gmail.com (Kevin Cline) writes:


> The Ruby implementation lines up with the Perl code almost token for
> token, except that I used the Perl <> operator, and I didn't bother
> storing the sort result in a variable.

Of course, as Ruby is a language of the same high level as Perl. The
Perl/Ruby code sticks with the "natural" algorithm to count
words... There's no much ways to achieve this problem. The most natural
could be "Hey, count the different word of these files" but,
unfortunately, it could be done like that (when it will be possible,
well, we have to choose another job).

> I agree that Ruby is slightly more readable than Perl, but I don't
> know about MUCH more readable.  I think the use of %, @, and $ in Perl
> is not obvious, and the <> operator is pretty magical, but the rest of
> the code seems straightforward.

For what i know, Ruby code is /always/ more readable than Perl code,
for the same level of abstraction. If you can see the difference in
this simple example, imagine for scripts of hundred and hundred
lines... Readibility, that's my point.

Back to Ada, i'm agree with you, your Ada code is not very readable :
it's to "heavy", but perhaps because Charles is not adequate here ? I
wonder if using such "small" packages as gnat.htable could be more
appropriate for this particular example. I'm not fond of always using
the same libs for different things. But i admit i don't know Charles
very well.
-- 
�ric Jacoboni, n� il y a 1399514759 secondes