Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ichbiah 2022 compiler mode
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 02:14:00 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <vk5tc9$3uoku$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vbc625$at65$1@dont-email.me> <vbdgs7$hedr$1@dont-email.me> <vk4uee$3lfp0$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 09:14:02 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a539143aaaf8e240cfd1c441013bf73f";
	logging-data="4154014"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+hRdmT4OzV34ZzlOBqeZ5b0u4TPti+Qvg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jOgsHcw410hIu6FF/OgKjPZU7OM=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-Priority: 3
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 3021

"Lioneldraghi" <lionel.draghi@free.fr> wrote in message 
news:vk4uee$3lfp0$1@dont-email.me...
....
> Le 06/09/2024 à 02:03, Randy Brukardt a écrit :
>> (3) A number of syntax options are eliminated. Matching identifiers are
>> required at the end of subprograms and packages. Initializers are always
>> required (<> can be used if default initialization is needed). Keyword
>> "variable" is needed to declare variables (we do not want the worst 
>> option
>> to be the easiest to write, as it is in Ada).
>
> Why are you considering variables worst than constants?
>
> I don't want the the "worst" option to be the easiest to write, but 
> neither do I want to put one more keyword in the most common case.

A lot of "variables" in code actually are only written once. In Ada, those 
are better modeled as constants. A constant tells the reader that the value 
doesn't change during the life of the object, which is easier for analysis 
(both human and machine).

Secondly, I am assuming that automation is helping to write a lot of code. 
"One more keyword" is irrelevant in terms of creating code, the only 
question is whether it hurts readability. I prefer to have most things 
written explicitly (but not to the point of noise, of course). That seems 
especially true if the code is being written by a program and mostly you are 
trying to figure out why it doesn't work!

> Note that :
> 1. I have no statistics, but it seems to me that there is more variables 
> than constants in my code.

But how many of them *have* to be variables vs. the number that just are 
because it is easier? I know I have a number of the latter.

> 2. I say "Useless" from my coder point of view, I dont know if it simplify 
> the work for compiler or tools implementers.

Constants do help the compiler generate better code, although a lot of the 
benefits can be gained also by working harder. (That's what C compilers do, 
after all.)

               Randy.