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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cec04f9d45b3f527 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-31 09:31:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Ed Falis Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: An Ada advocacy method Message-ID: <20030831123103.43926d87.falis@verizon.net> In-Reply-To: <3F521B65.1090004@noplace.com> References: <3F4F4817.7030306@noplace.com> <3F50130A.1070406@noplace.com> <3F50A70E.7050809@noplace.com> <3F521B65.1090004@noplace.com> X-Newsreader: Sylpheed version 0.9.4claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:31:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.162.213.35 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1062347467 68.162.213.35 (Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:31:07 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:31:07 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42012 Date: 2003-08-31T16:31:07+00:00 List-Id: I'll make some remarks as a former Aonix employee (and current Ada Core employee). On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:59:47 GMT Marin David Condic wrote: > 1) A Library. The MFC largely covered weaknesses in C++ that Ada > didn't have, so we can skip those capabilities, but it still provided > data structures, hooks to the OS, and lots of other development > goodies. (Please spare me any argument that even remotely sounds like > "Well you can buy MSVC++ and then bind to all that stuff with Ada..." > :-) That really isn't a very good characterization of the point of MFC, which is that it's an application development framework. When I was with Aonix, an MFC binding was available at extra cost. > > 2) Documentation. Click on something and push the right button and > you're at a detailed explanation of the thing in question, complete > with examples of how to use it right. This is particularly importabnt > once you have #1 above. Don't remember the details on this in ObjectAda. I do know that "hovering" was implemented as a contextual help aid. > > 3) Debugging that is tightly integrated with the rest of the system. > You just indicated you wanted to run in debug mode and when something > broke (which often happens in C++) you were right there in the source > code where the problem occurred. You could even make a patch to the > code on the fly and continue with execution. That was a big time > saver. Ada may need the debugger less, but if you're going to have one > at all, it ought to be this nicely integrated. OA did put you right where the problem was, but I don't think you were in a position to edit and rebuild without exiting the debugger (it was a while ago for me). Patching was not implemented. In GPS, you are in the source, can edit and rebuild. Given the speed of rebuilding, patching is really not necessary. > > 4) Integrated GUI Builder. The GUI builder wasn't some sideline thing > - it was part of the project you were developing and as you added or > changed things in the GUI, it would (re)generate the interface code > you needed. Hopping between something defined in the GUI and where it > was dealt with in the code was also pretty direct. As of the last time I looked (3 years ago), the GUI builder was still somewhat separate, but better than it had been. > > 5) Project Views - You see this in GPS too. You could look at the > project as a series of files or you could look at it as a set of > classes or you could look at it as a set of windows. There might be > other ways to view a project - some of them specialized to a given > domain - but this was a big help. (GPS filled that void nicely, but > I'd still like to see more capabilities and better integration. I > know... "Bitch! Bitch! Bitch!" :-) I believe OA 7.2 addressed this to roughly the same extent as GPS. > > There are probably other capabilities I've forgotten or that were > nice, but not that big a deal. I think the above list is pretty good, > though. I might add to my wish list - tight integration to a database > (Database design and code generation built in) and near-invisible, > well integrated configuration management/change control, but that > might be getting too far off the immediate issue - that which MSVC++ > has that I've not noticed in Ada environments. Check out the version control in GPS. One thing to bear in mind while you "bitch, bitch bitch" is that OA was an attempt to put together a Windows development environment for Ada that at least approached MSVC++. A lot of effort went into it, but the bottom line was that there was insufficient volume for it to succeed at a competitive price point, especially with the support requirements of its native market (people used to getting support for $10K+ type systems rather than the kind they got with MSVC++). The money wasn't there to move the product to the same kind of capability, though we tried awfully hard. Perhaps someone currently at Aonix will have further comments. It wasn't for lack of effort and fighting to do it, believe me. The people behind that product had the same vision for a Windows Ada IDE. But from my current location, check out GPS. ;-) - Ed