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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: "David A. Frantz" Subject: Re: Current Ada strengths - was Re: ADA SUCKS, C/C++/JAVA RULES!!!! Date: 1997/10/31 Message-ID: <345a139d.0@news.eznet.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 286228936 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <635csg$2eu$1@news2.alpha.net> <635u6q$4tk$1@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> <345881C4.640998A4@horvath.com> <34591453.0@news.eznet.net> <345946D5.CF3E77FB@horvath.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Reply-To: "David A. Frantz" <_wizard@eznet.net> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy Date: 1997-10-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bob Horvath wrote in message <345946D5.CF3E77FB@horvath.com>... > > >David A. Frantz wrote: > >> Bob Horvath wrote in message <345881C4.640998A4@horvath.com>... >> >Steve Ropa wrote: >> > >> >> On 28 Oct 1997, Robert S. White wrote: >> >> >> >> > Ada's current weak points, IMHO / IME, are in "wizard smart" GUI >> >> > code generation. >> >> >> >> Personally, I would like to see less emphasis on wizards anyway. I have >> >> had too many developers tell me they knew what they were doing, but when >> I >> >> took their wizards away, they were lost! >> > >> >I have often wondered the same thing. I head people talk about IDEs and >> >coming from a vi/make environment, I wonder what I am missing, if anything. >> >Perhaps these are two different things. >> > >> >It seems to me that if you know language, you don't need an IDE. And if >> you >> >need an IDE, then you don't know the language. >> > >> >> An IDE in my opinion has nothing to do with knowing the language. An IDE >> if successful should make the programmer more productive! Can't really >> see the relationship of the user interface, wether a make/command line >> environment or a fancy IDE, to knowing the lanquage. > >How do they make you more productive? I've never used one. I have seen CASE >tools years ago that I thought were very unproductive. Perhaps I don't know >what I am missing, but I can't imagine anything really helping out, except for >something that might make building GUIs a little easier, but for the guts of an >application, what do they buy you? > Actually I think we agree here. For the GUTS of the application the GUI or the make/command line environment buy you nothing. You must know your lang. and its libriaries to be successful. The problem is, granted this is Windowing environment specific, there are many other parts to a application besides the code. A GUI does allow one to build and tack on components (resources) to that application in a much easier manner (more productive). I do from time to time machine tool programming targeted at PLC. In the past you could build a PLC program one opcode at a time in a manner simmilar to assemmbly. That was quickly replaced with "ladder logic". All successful PLC manufactures now supply thier ladder logic developement systems with some sort of GUI. Some of these GUI are poorly done some are of great help to the programmer. The key is to pick a tool that helps with application developement. Now a question like: does MFC help a developer deliever an application for WINDOWS is much harder to answer. For most I would suspect that it is not the best tool. DAVE