The Ada experience

The Ada experience

[Kenneth Mays]

I still stand with both Ada and C++, it is more what the programmer 
can do with the knowledge they have of both languages. Some may use 
the theory that if a carpenter is told build a house, the carpenter 
would pick the right tools for the job. C++ has its strengths and 
weakness, and I would say the same for Ada 95. I ask myself only if 
the carpenter is capable of getting the job done and done RIGHT 
(maybe the first time?). If the carpenter couldn't make a wise 
decision on what tools to use for teh job, maybe that carpenter 
better look for another profession and get some CERTIFIED training. 
:o)

Ken

The Ada experience.

[henderson was no auteur]

>I still think that the greatest obstacle is the Ada out of box experience. 

I have to agree.
I have never used the pro version of GNAT. ( no big bucks here)
However, the free version with the various free IDEs is abyssmal.

It feels like something out of the sixties.

Re: The Ada experience.

[jim hopper]

Depends upon your system.  The integration that we have achieved
between gnat and Apples Project Builder IDE and Interface Builder (GUI
Builder) in MacOS X 10.2 which was just released is VERY nice and very
much on par with the C/C++ stuff.   we use the same tools, debuggers,
etc.  We have some things to work out yet, but its the best environment
i have ever worked in for development so far.

i also thought the SGI tools were very nice for gnat.

jim

In article <9a25nugj860iofuv46h2l2bbvlgf4ophc0@4ax.com>, henderson was
no auteur <morbid_dreams@cia.gov> wrote:

> >I still think that the greatest obstacle is the Ada out of box experience. 
> 
> I have to agree.
> I have never used the pro version of GNAT. ( no big bucks here)
> However, the free version with the various free IDEs is abyssmal.
> 
> It feels like something out of the sixties.

Re: The Ada experience.

[Preben Randhol]

On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 07:41:03 +1000, henderson was no auteur wrote:
>>I still think that the greatest obstacle is the Ada out of box experience. 
> 
> I have to agree.
> I have never used the pro version of GNAT. ( no big bucks here)
> However, the free version with the various free IDEs is abyssmal.
> 
> It feels like something out of the sixties.

<rant> 
Nowadays the wrapping is the most important I guess. If the
content is bad or buggy or a health risk doesn't matter as long as it
has a nice box flashy cover and cool stickers on it.
</rant>

But speaking of Gnat and out of the box (to come) read this:

   http://www.gnat.com/texts/news/news_gps.htm

   and 

   http://www.gnat.com/texts/products/GPS_tour.pdf

   for a tour with screenshots

Hopefully there will be a public version too.

Preben Randhol

Re: The Ada experience.

[Ted Dennison]

henderson was no auteur <morbid_dreams@cia.gov> wrote in message news:<9a25nugj860iofuv46h2l2bbvlgf4ophc0@4ax.com>...
> >I still think that the greatest obstacle is the Ada out of box experience. 
> 
> I have to agree.
> I have never used the pro version of GNAT. ( no big bucks here)
> However, the free version with the various free IDEs is abyssmal.
> 
> It feels like something out of the sixties.

I'm guessing you are comparing it to VisualC++, no?

I suppose it depends on your perspective. For me, developing using
VisualC++ (version 6.0) feels like playing with a toy compared to the
Gnat toolkit. The editor is nice looking, but not nearly functional
enough. The compiler doesn't implement the language properly (or even
very well). Template support is a particular disaster. It has
gawd-aful error messages, which causes the user way more work that
should be nessecary to figure out what they did wrong (its not
uncommon for something simple like a missing semicolon to pull an
error somewhere deep in a standard library header file). It comes with
a semi-functional non-standard version of the STL. To top it off, its
chock full of code-generation bugs, which act as little day-wasting
land mines for you to periodicly step on. And good luck trying to get
Bill G. to fix them for you, or getting the sources to fix them
yourself.

The code builder is too moronic figure out recompilation dependancies
without manual user intervention (which is just begging for errors).
Maintaining all those dependancies manually in a large project is
simply impossible.

But I'll grant you, its a nice *shiny* toy. :-)

Re: The Ada experience.

[Marin David Condic]

Your complaints about VisualC++ are fair, but there are two perspectives to look at. MSVC++ is very feature-rich and well
integrated. Gnat as a compiler is a command-line oriented thing with some add-on tools that might make it a bit more of
an IDE. (Waiting to see what GPS provides.) In this sense, I can understand the complaint about it looking like something
from the '60s in comparison to MSVC++.

The other perspective is that even though MSVC++ is a feature-rich, well integrated set of tools, the execution thereof
can be quite poor. Throw on top of it the naturally difficult syntax/semantics of C++ and all the traps that implies plus
the awkward and butt-ugly cripcrap that MSVC++ sticks into the code so it can connect up to the GUI building thing and
you've got a royal mess. It can make you yearn for the '60s where all you wanted to do was develop for a command line.
:-)

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================



Ted Dennison wrote:

>
>
> I'm guessing you are comparing it to VisualC++, no?
>
> I suppose it depends on your perspective. For me, developing using
> VisualC++ (version 6.0) feels like playing with a toy compared to the
> Gnat toolkit. The editor is nice looking, but not nearly functional
> enough. The compiler doesn't implement the language properly (or even
> very well). Template support is a particular disaster. It has
> gawd-aful error messages, which causes the user way more work that
> should be nessecary to figure out what they did wrong (its not
> uncommon for something simple like a missing semicolon to pull an
> error somewhere deep in a standard library header file). It comes with
> a semi-functional non-standard version of the STL. To top it off, its
> chock full of code-generation bugs, which act as little day-wasting
> land mines for you to periodicly step on. And good luck trying to get
> Bill G. to fix them for you, or getting the sources to fix them
> yourself.
>
> The code builder is too moronic figure out recompilation dependancies
> without manual user intervention (which is just begging for errors).
> Maintaining all those dependancies manually in a large project is
> simply impossible.
>
> But I'll grant you, its a nice *shiny* toy. :-)

Re: The Ada experience.

[Marc A. Criley]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Your complaints about VisualC++ are fair, but there are two perspectives to look at. MSVC++ is very feature-rich and well
> integrated. Gnat as a compiler is a command-line oriented thing with some add-on tools that might make it a bit more of
> an IDE. (Waiting to see what GPS provides.) In this sense, I can understand the complaint about it looking like something
> from the '60s in comparison to MSVC++.
> 
> The other perspective is that even though MSVC++ is a feature-rich, well integrated set of tools, the execution thereof
> can be quite poor. Throw on top of it the naturally difficult syntax/semantics of C++ and all the traps that implies plus
> the awkward and butt-ugly cripcrap that MSVC++ sticks into the code so it can connect up to the GUI building thing and
> you've got a royal mess. It can make you yearn for the '60s where all you wanted to do was develop for a command line.
> :-)

Ditto.

I've been working in the VC++ environment for a year and a half now, and
I continue to bang my head up against it.  (Though no small part of that
is due to the idiosyncrasies of Windows(tm) as well.)

I'm not stupid, and I've worked on a variety of platforms and IDEs over
the last nearly 20 years (Univac, VAX, Concurrent mainframe, various
Unices) and never had the ongoing struggle I experience with Windows and
VC++.  It's not the C++ that hits me, it's the (for lack of a better
phrase) Windows paradigm.

I was talking to my wife about this the other day, and she observed that
when programming Windows and VC++ it doesn't matter much how smart you
are, or skilled, or what you've studied; the only thing that matters is
what experience you have with that environment, so that you can draw on
that to work around, or avoid, problems.

Marc A. Criley

Re: The Ada experience.

[SteveD]

"Marc A. Criley" <mcq95@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D7C8A62.C4FC17A0@earthlink.net...
[snip]
>
> Ditto.
>
> I've been working in the VC++ environment for a year and a half now, and
> I continue to bang my head up against it.  (Though no small part of that
> is due to the idiosyncrasies of Windows(tm) as well.)
>
> I'm not stupid, and I've worked on a variety of platforms and IDEs over
> the last nearly 20 years (Univac, VAX, Concurrent mainframe, various
> Unices) and never had the ongoing struggle I experience with Windows and
> VC++.  It's not the C++ that hits me, it's the (for lack of a better
> phrase) Windows paradigm.
>

That's your problem.  In my experience people who love the Windows
development environment have zero experience with any other system.
Unfortunately this has been a growing percentage of programmers.

SteveD

>
> Marc A. Criley

Re: The Ada experience.

[tmoran]

> never had the ongoing struggle I experience with Windows and VC++.
> ...
> experience you have with that environment, so that you can draw on
> that to work around, or avoid, problems.
  When we started developing CLAW (Class Library for Ada on Windows), part
of the intent was to make Windows easier for Ada programmers by presenting
a surface allowing use of Ada techniques and paradigms.  Nowadays I
realize the (painfully gained) knowledge of Windows and workarounds
embedded inside the CLAW routines is every bit as important.