Content deleted Content added
Ada 95 Quality and Style recommendations |
chapters for better reading |
||
Line 1:
__TOC__
== Ada Home ==
*[http://adahome.com/ Ada Home] - Old Web Site for Ada (not maintained)
: I agree it is not maintained, but it is still used by Ada practitioners for reference. It is still recently referenced from the comp.lang.ada group. So I have restored the extlink. -[[User:Wikibob|Wikibob]] | [[User talk:Wikibob|Talk]] 11:24, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
== Moved comments ==
'''Moved comments here from main text. Reorganized into threads.'''--[[:buzco|buzco]]
== Ariane 5 ==
The descrition of the Ariane 5 Failure should not be on a side discribing a programming lanuage a link to a different side should be enough.
[http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Misc/Additional/Reports/ariane.html Ariane 5 Failure]
[http://www.wackerart.de Hermann Wacker]
== US Department of Defense ==
Really only used anymore in US Department of Defense stuff. Oh yeah, and Ada95, the most popular Ada compiler actually translates your code to C, then compiles the C. I love that.
Line 25 ⟶ 34:
:cfront was a c++-to-c translator !
== theory books ==
Ada is used in a few compiler theory books because of its comprehensiveness and elegance.
== primary users ==
Should there be a section on primary users of a language like ada and how their requirements affected the language?
== Pascal ==
Ada has some tastes of Pascal still but not one of the bad ones. --[[:Janet Davis|Janet Davis]]
== list of possible topics ==
(list of possible topics moved from main page)
What about
Line 42 ⟶ 57:
* how Ada suffered from design by DOC committee/specifications and required super-fast hardware for compilation/debugging.
* ?? others
== list of possible topics ==
I think the Steelman language requirements page would be better as part of this entry, or maybe a subpage, as it isn't really of interest except in the context of Ada. Anyone agree/disagree? --Matthew Woodcraft
== More Ariane 5 ==
I don't think the note re the Ariane 5 disaster is quite correct. As I understand it, the fault was the re-use of a part ''and'' its software, which had worked properly on the Ariane 4. However, the more powerful engines on the Ariane 5 gave a thrust/velocity/displacement that was out of the part's design range, and the part detected that fact -- correctly, according to its original design. But since it thought it had a number that failed the sanity check it went into debug mode -- again according to design -- and started dumping debug data onto the rocket's control bus. So unless my understanding of the problem is wrong, the problem was a simple failure to review a part's specifications, and nothing at all to do with the programming language or compilation switches. -- [[User:Bobby D. Bryant|B.Bryant]]
Line 53 ⟶ 72:
----
== Re: "design by DOC committee
:Ada was not "designed by committee", each version (Ada and Ada-95) had ONE designer that had final say on any feature or change to the language. Its design is far cleaner and more organized than many other languages. -- [[User:RTC|RTC]] 01:38 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Line 60 ⟶ 79:
----
== Re: "required super-fast hardware for compilation/debugging" ==
:I added a section on the problems that the early compilers had and why. -- [[User:RTC|RTC]] 02:16 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Line 98 ⟶ 118:
I propose to change the capitalization of the identifier 'Text_Io' in the Hello World! example. In my opinion the correct letter case is 'Text_IO' and not 'Text_Io', as it's found in the [http://www.adaic.org/standards/95aarm/html/AA-A-10-1.html Ada Reference Manual] and also in the [http://www.iuma.ulpgc.es/users/jmiranda/gnat-rts/rts/a-textio__ads.htm GNAT source code]. Although Ada is not case sensitive this doesn't mean that capitalization isn't important. The [http://www.adaic.com/docs/95style/html/cover.html Ada 95 Quality and Style Guide] recommends to '[http://www.adaic.com/docs/95style/html/sec_3/3-1-3.html Use uppercase for abbreviations and acronyms]', e.g. Text_IO (for Input/Output). Moreover, GNAT has an option to check attribute casing and reject any identifier that doesn't mach with its definition casing. Both forms are syntactically correct, but Text_IO is more correct and follows the language's guidelines of quality and style. Thanks -- [[User:Suruena|suruena]] 14:13, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
:Right!
--[[User:Krischik|Krischik]] 14:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
| |||