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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,39e272d357c68416 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jim_snead Subject: Re: Is Apex dead as an environment for Ada & Java? Date: 1999/11/26 Message-ID: <000b8d9b.8e8e4afb@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 553450073 References: X-Originating-Host: 207.58.16.76 X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse@remarq.com X-Trace: WReNphoon3 943655631 10.0.2.42 (Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:33:51 PST) Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:33:51 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Wren-Trace: eA8qAgMaXRdcTRoUGVgBCRk8EhNHD0oTC00DAwtbRB9XRxpWTx5MT1RY Date: 1999-11-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Tom_Hargraves@Raytheon.com wrote: > *** We are an Ada83 project. Ada 95 may be of help here. However, > my brain gets > more and more taxed, the more dots I see in declarations, and > 'renames' doesn't > seem to help ;-) Like I said, I don't care about Ada 83 with respect to Apex. Apex Subsystems may be a viable option for organizing Ada 83 packages. However subsystems are useless for standard Ada 95. According to one rationale I saw, the Ada 95 package hierarchy was introduced as an advancement of the old Rational R1000 (?) subsystem approach. My hypothesis is that using a single subsystem and then using multiple Apex "views" is all that is needed for a large Ada 95 project. It stands to reason that the concept of a subsystem is therefore unnecessary and outdated. Other options are combinations of CVS, emacs, etc as others have proposed. These sound much more effective for Ada 95 and Java development. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!