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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: 1999/11/30 Message-ID: <00844d40.d48fa2f6@usw-ex0107-043.remarq.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 555155887 References: <11f733ec.57d88b68@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com> <384450A7.CAF2722F@averstar.com> X-Originating-Host: 207.58.24.86 X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse@remarq.com X-Trace: WReNphoon3 944023478 10.0.2.43 (Tue, 30 Nov 1999 20:44:38 PST) Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 20:44:38 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Wren-Trace: eBcyGhsCRQ9EVQIMAUAZEQEkCgtfF1ILE1UbGxNDXAdPXwJOVwVWV0NA Date: 1999-11-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <384450A7.CAF2722F@averstar.com>, Tucker Taft wrote: > jim_snead wrote: > > > > I have been studying the Rational Apex product > > as an Ada 95 and Java development environment. > > Apex has an unusual feature called "subsystems" > > which to me seems quite useless. > For what it is worth, essentially all Ada compilers have > something analogous to subsystems, typically called "sublibraries" > or "catalogs" or some such thing. Rational's subsystems do have > more mechanism supporting them. In most other compilers, a > sublibrary > is just another directory with perhaps a specially-named file or > two (e.g. "ada.lib"). The net result is pretty much the same -- you > can > do configuration management over a subset of the sources of a large > system, and bundle together the sources that make up a conceptual > "library" of some sort (e.g. a graphics library, a database > library, etc.) for easier reuse across projects. If this is alluding to the problem of brittle libraries in Ada 83 code, I can see why someone might be gun-shy of having a large subsystem. I have heard many stories of "ada.lib" libraries in the traditional sense that can easily get out of sync or get corrupted and lead to massive rebuilds. If you spread ada.lib's around, not as much can get damaged at once. A clever deceit on Rational's part but I do not buy it. What I rather do like is the idea of source based libraries. Apparently more Ada 95 compiler vendors are turning to source-based libraries, and they have a reputation of being very stable. Therefore I conclude that a lighter-weight directory structure may be more useful for future growth. Thanks for the hints. > Rational subsystems add some amount of visibility control, which > doesn't seem as useful as it was in Ada 83, given the ability to > use child units in Ada 95. Agreed > -- > -Tucker Taft stt@averstar.com http://www.averstar.com/~stt/ > Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions > (www.averstar.com/tools) > AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.) Burlington, MA USA * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!