* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
@ 1999-01-26 0:00 bourguet
1999-01-26 0:00 ` dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: bourguet @ 1999-01-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
John McCabe <john.mccabe@gecm.com> wrote:
>>Brian Orpin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:44:25 GMT, john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam (John
>> McCabe) wrote:
>> >What on earth is ada-mode 3.0? First I've heard of it. Where can I get
>>
>> It is on the cs.nyu archive (as is 11p) as 3.1
>
>Can you give me an exact URL? I had a look round last night and couldn't
>find anything that seemed right. Is it part of a gzipped file or
>something.
ftp://cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/adamode_3.1.tar.gz
>> It does of course seem to assume that the only Ada compiler in the world
>> is Gnat which is a real pity.
>That's not surprising. I've heard something about ACT getting involved
>with ada-mode from the emacs ada mode mailing list, but I had hoped they
>would separate anything they did from the main code to allow other
>compilers to be used with it.
I do not see what prevent the use of this mode to edit ada code for other
compilers. As far as I known, the only thing which was not dependant on
gnat which will now be unavailable to others people is the stub generation
(perhaps a request to re-insert the old code could be sent to ACT?). By the
way every other time the result of the old code was just to copy the spec in
the body and add " body " after package.
I've more to complain (I've send a report) to the definition of key
sequences which should be reserved to users.
>> The texi file will not convert to info nor will it convert to html (as
>> the html file in the distribution shows).
>
>Tremendous ! (*NOT*)
I had no problem to generate an info file (it was named ada-mode).
-- Jean-Marc
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-26 0:00 Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java) bourguet
@ 1999-01-26 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-27 0:00 ` bourguet
[not found] ` <36affcb4.14065782@news.geccs.gecm.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread
From: dewar @ 1999-01-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <78kk11$qmd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
bourguet@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> It does of course seem to assume that the only Ada
> >> compiler in the world
> >> is Gnat which is a real pity.
The new Ada mode certainly does rely on GNAT to provide
information that only a compiler can provide.
> >That's not surprising. I've heard something about ACT
> >getting involved
> >with ada-mode from the emacs ada mode mailing list, but
> >I had hoped they
> >would separate anything they did from the main code to
> >allow other
> >compilers to be used with it.
>
> I do not see what prevent the use of this mode to edit
> ada code for other
> compilers. As far as I known, the only thing which was
> not dependant on
> gnat which will now be unavailable to others people is
> the stub generation
No, that's wrong, the really important feature is the
cross-referencing features which are driven by ali files,
and there is no way of duplicating this kind of Ada
compiler smart knowledge without an Ada compiler.
However, the intention is certainly that other features of
Ada mode can be used without problems.
> (perhaps a request to re-insert the old code could be
> sent to ACT?). By the
> way every other time the result of the old code was just
> to copy the spec in
> the body and add " body " after package.
That's a reasonable request. Note however, that there is
nothing to stop you using the gnatstub tool with other
compilers!
> I've more to complain (I've send a report) to the
> definition of key
> sequences which should be reserved to users.
Unfortunately, it is definitely too late to change key
sequences at this point, as there is a pretty large user
base.
Suggestions for Ada mode (or for any other feature relating
to GNAT) can certainly be discussed here, if they are
general Ada related things, or on chat@gnat.com if they
are very specific to GNAT (there are *many* knowledgable
GNAT users on chat who cannot find the time or energy to
read CLA these days :-)
But for actual suggestions to be registered by ACT, send
them to report@gnat.com, thanks.
Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies
P.S. One possibility for key sequences is to provide an
alternative set of definitions. of course it is relatively
trivial to modify key sequences!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-26 0:00 ` dewar
@ 1999-01-27 0:00 ` bourguet
1999-01-27 0:00 ` John McCabe
[not found] ` <36affcb4.14065782@news.geccs.gecm.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: bourguet @ 1999-01-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <78ks1t$253$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> In article <78kk11$qmd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> bourguet@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >That's not surprising. I've heard something about ACT
> > >getting involved
> > >with ada-mode from the emacs ada mode mailing list, but
> > >I had hoped they
> > >would separate anything they did from the main code to
> > >allow other
> > >compilers to be used with it.
> >
> > I do not see what prevent the use of this mode to edit
> > ada code for other
> > compilers. As far as I known, the only thing which was
^^^^^^^^^
> > not dependant on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > gnat which will now be unavailable to others people is
> > the stub generation
>
> No, that's wrong, the really important feature is the
> cross-referencing features which are driven by ali files,
> and there is no way of duplicating this kind of Ada
> compiler smart knowledge without an Ada compiler.
I think that the cross reference feature of ada-mode did
already depend on gnat.
> However, the intention is certainly that other features of
> Ada mode can be used without problems.
-- Jean-Marc
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread[parent not found: <36affcb4.14065782@news.geccs.gecm.com>]
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
[not found] ` <36affcb4.14065782@news.geccs.gecm.com>
@ 1999-01-27 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Simon Wright @ 1999-01-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
abuse@borpin.demon.co.uk (Brian Orpin) writes:
(replying to Robert Dewar, I think)
> But you shouldn't have to! The whole point is to use common key
> sequences as much as possible. Why change it? It just perpetuates
> the feeling that Ada is a law unto itself so people steer away from
> it. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.
I don't know which is odd-man-out, but it is a royal pain that in Ada
mode C-c C-c means 'compile' (in some way or other), while in C or C++
mode it means 'comment out the region'.
Personally I don't mind who becomes the main ada-mode maintainer, but
with my unsupported hat on I wouldn't like to wait another 12 months
or more for ACT's 3.2 ..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-27 0:00 ` Simon Wright
@ 1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-30 0:00 ` dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: John McCabe @ 1999-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Simon Wright wrote:
> Personally I don't mind who becomes the main ada-mode maintainer, but
> with my unsupported hat on I wouldn't like to wait another 12 months
> or more for ACT's 3.2 ..
Me either. I would like to see the mailing list become more active. It
was for a while then it completely died. Even using the commands in the
original response I received from the list server when I joined don't
work. Except for sending mesages to the list, the list server seems to
be under the impression it's not handling that list any more.
I would prefer to see independant development of ada-mode. I don't like
the way that ACT have taken the menu out of the main ada-mode.el file
and included all the sub-menus as part of their 'enhancements'. It ties
it even more to GNAT which I believe is a bad thing.
John
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
@ 1999-01-30 0:00 ` dewar
[not found] ` <36b7695a.2630918@news.geccs.gecm.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: dewar @ 1999-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <36B1F27A.6762@gecm.com>,
John McCabe <john.mccabe@gecm.com> wrote:
> Simon Wright wrote:
>
> > Personally I don't mind who becomes the main ada-mode
> > maintainer, but
> > with my unsupported hat on I wouldn't like to wait
> > another 12 months or more for ACT's 3.2 ..
As I said earlier, it is most definitely the case that ACT
would want to see continued development by the community
here.
> I would prefer to see independant development of
> ada-mode. I don't like the way that ACT have taken the
> menu out of the main ada-mode.el file and included all
> the sub-menus as part of their 'enhancements'. It ties
> it even more to GNAT which I believe is a bad thing.
I am sure this is an area where there will be lots of
disagreements as to which is the best thing to do. Our
development is based on the needs of our customers and
our own development team, and we have our own opinions
about how things should be done. Tight integration of
GNAT related features is indeed one of the goals we have.
We are simply sharing what we do here, no one is forced
to take it if they don't want to! We will most certainly
be continuing to develop Ada mode, but independent
development is certainly welcome, and we will feel free
to borrow any good ideas out there, and people should feel
free to borrow any of our ideas that they care to!
Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Ada vs C++ vs Java
@ 1999-01-12 0:00 Leszek Sczaniecki
1999-01-13 0:00 ` Erik Funkenbusch
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Leszek Sczaniecki @ 1999-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
We are about to start a big project, something about 250k lines of code.
We are going to stick to it for next several years. We would like to
make an educated choice for the underlying language. This language
should
- support object oriented programming
- support parallel programming
- lead to easily maintainable code
- promote safe programming techniques
- have significant support from commercial vendors (compilers, GUI
design, testing sw)
- be available for popular processors (such as 68xxx, PowerPC, etc.)
- enjoy wealth of existing solutions
- support "almost real time" execution
- be suitable for design of embedded systems
- have existing support for vxworks
There is a legacy code written in Ada and our customer would prefer Ada
95. However, we became seriously concerned that there is not sufficient
support for Ada in the commercial world. Given, that we will be stuck
with our project for the next several years we would like to choose
something that still will have adequate support few years down the road.
Given all that we decided to check C++ and Java. I would appreciate
greatly any comparisons, comments, hints, pointers to electronic and
hard copy sources, warnings about traps and pitfalls, etc. that would
help us thoroughly justify the language choice to our customer.
-leszek
PS
If you are afraid that your response may start a religious war or that
it is not of interest of your newsgroup please send me e-mail.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-12 0:00 Ada vs C++ vs Java Leszek Sczaniecki
@ 1999-01-13 0:00 ` Erik Funkenbusch
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Erik Funkenbusch @ 1999-01-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
It's not a very cut and dried situation i'm afraid.
(comments below)
Leszek Sczaniecki <lsczan@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net...
>We are about to start a big project, something about 250k lines of code.
>We are going to stick to it for next several years. We would like to
>make an educated choice for the underlying language. This language
>should
I don't think size of the project has much influence over the choice when
considering language. At least not in the languages you've mentioned.
>- support object oriented programming
All three do, although at differing levels and differing feature sets
(example: Java doesn't support Multiple Inheritance, C++ does. But that
may not be a concern to you).
>- support parallel programming
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. You mean multi-processor
support? Threads? Those are OS constructs, but of course the Language has
to be able to handle them (VB for instance doesn't do a good job of that).
>- lead to easily maintainable code
No language will do that. It's a function of design.
>- promote safe programming techniques
Be aware that "safe" often means "confining". You may not be able to do the
things you need to do in a language that doesn't support pointers or direct
hardware access (like Java).
>- have significant support from commercial vendors (compilers, GUI
>design, testing sw)
Well, Java is gaining a lot of vendor support. But be aware that the
language is changing rapidly and that there is no standardization of it.
New versions are likely to make older code obsolete (for instance, the
switch from 1.0.x to 1.1 introduced whole new event models). It's a very
immature language and is likely to go through a lot more growing pains.
>- be available for popular processors (such as 68xxx, PowerPC, etc.)
Processors aren't the key, OS platforms are. You're most safe with C++ on
this matter i think. Java isn't available on everything yet. You're also
likely to find limited choices in ADA compilers on more obscure OS's.
>- enjoy wealth of existing solutions
If you mean add-on libraries, again this is mostly OS platform related,
although there are certainly a number of platform independant libraries as
well. I don't know much about the 3rd party ADA market, but C++ certainly
has a strong support here.
>- support "almost real time" execution
Well, Java certainly can't do this yet. C++ can, depending on OS support.
ADA most certainly does, or it wouldn't be able to be used in Jet Avionics
and such.
>- be suitable for design of embedded systems
C++ generally isn't. There is an "embedded C++" that's in the works, and
there might even be some implementations. C is better for embedded work
than C++. I don't know the specifics of ADA embedded work.
>There is a legacy code written in Ada and our customer would prefer Ada
>95. However, we became seriously concerned that there is not sufficient
>support for Ada in the commercial world.
Well, there seems to be plenty of vendor support for ADA, but I think you
won't find as much 3rd party library support. That means you'll be stuck
writing everything from scratch in most cases.
>Given, that we will be stuck
>with our project for the next several years we would like to choose
>something that still will have adequate support few years down the road.
>Given all that we decided to check C++ and Java. I would appreciate
>greatly any comparisons, comments, hints, pointers to electronic and
>hard copy sources, warnings about traps and pitfalls, etc. that would
>help us thoroughly justify the language choice to our customer.
Well, I would vote against Java. It's too immature for a long term project
and has questionable speed.
Your choice of ADA and C++ has many factors. It's likely going to be easier
to find people to maintain C++ code than ADA. It's also got more 3rd party
support. Both are standardized, although not all current compilers support
the full standard C++ yet (in fact, I don't know of any that are fully
compliant yet).
ADA is mature, and has proven itself in military applications and stability
over the years.
You've got to weigh the pros and cons and come to your own decision.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-13 0:00 ` Erik Funkenbusch
@ 1999-01-14 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
1999-01-14 0:00 ` John Birch
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Gerhard Menzl @ 1999-01-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >- be suitable for design of embedded systems
>
> C++ generally isn't. There is an "embedded C++" that's in the works, and
> there might even be some implementations. C is better for embedded work
> than C++.
This claim is completely unfounded. Since C is "for all practical purposes" (as
Bjarne Stroustrup puts it) a subset of C++, there is no reason why C should be a
better choice, providing compilers are available for both languages. Whether
certain *features* of C++ such as templates or exceptions can be reasonably used
on embedded systems is a matter of debate.
Gerhard Menzl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
@ 1999-01-14 0:00 ` John Birch
1999-01-15 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: John Birch @ 1999-01-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:06:27 +0100, Gerhard Menzl
<gerhard.menzl@sea.ericsson.se> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> >- be suitable for design of embedded systems
>>
>> C++ generally isn't. There is an "embedded C++" that's in the works, and
>> there might even be some implementations. C is better for embedded work
>> than C++.
>
>This claim is completely unfounded.
There are many embedded programmers who regard the concept of dynamic
memory allocation in an embedded system as laughable at best and a
terminal offence at worst. If you restict C++ in such a way (i.e.
prevented the use of dynamic memory allocation) you'd pretty much end
up with C anyway!
Since I do not regard dynamic memory allocation as a _good_ thing for
most hard embedded systems, I find this claim well founded :-)
> Since C is "for all practical purposes" (as
>Bjarne Stroustrup puts it) a subset of C++, there is no reason why C should be a
>better choice, providing compilers are available for both languages. Whether
>certain *features* of C++ such as templates or exceptions can be reasonably used
>on embedded systems is a matter of debate.
Except that a perfectly valid ANSI C program need not compile or
execute correctly under C++. Consequently, if it's a subset, it's a
pretty poor one!
regards John B.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-14 0:00 ` John Birch
@ 1999-01-15 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
1999-01-15 0:00 ` John Birch
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Gerhard Menzl @ 1999-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
John Birch wrote:
> There are many embedded programmers who regard the concept of dynamic
> memory allocation in an embedded system as laughable at best and a
> terminal offence at worst. If you restict C++ in such a way (i.e.
> prevented the use of dynamic memory allocation) you'd pretty much end
> up with C anyway!
You would end up with a better C that gives you stronger type checking, const
correctness etc. It would still be C++, which is a multi-paradigm programming
language.
> Since I do not regard dynamic memory allocation as a _good_ thing for
> most hard embedded systems, I find this claim well founded :-)
That depends entirely on the allocation mechanism, I would say. C++ allows the
programmer to overload operators new and delete to define any form of allocation,
such as distributing chunks of memory from a preallocated pool. There are RTOSes
which have such mechanisms built in.
> Except that a perfectly valid ANSI C program need not compile or
> execute correctly under C++. Consequently, if it's a subset, it's a
> pretty poor one!
C code that does not compile under C++ is either very obscure, or it fails to comply
with the stronger type checking requirements of C++. Neither case can be considered
as essential to embedded systems programming. Or would you claim that embedded
systems code has to be obscure or requires weak type checking? "*Good* C programs
tend to be C++ programs." (B. Stroustrup: The C++ Programming Language, 3rd ed., p.
13).
Gerhard Menzl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-15 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
@ 1999-01-15 0:00 ` John Birch
1999-01-16 0:00 ` robert_dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: John Birch @ 1999-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:49:29 +0100, Gerhard Menzl
<gerhard.menzl@sea.ericsson.se> wrote:
I originally wrote:
>> There are many embedded programmers who regard the concept of dynamic
>> memory allocation in an embedded system as laughable at best and a
>> terminal offence at worst. If you restict C++ in such a way (i.e.
>> prevented the use of dynamic memory allocation) you'd pretty much end
>> up with C anyway!
>You would end up with a better C that gives you stronger type checking, const
>correctness etc. It would still be C++, which is a multi-paradigm programming
>language.
Yes you would certainly gain some features that were not present in C.
Whether it made sense to use a crippled C++ in this way is a much more
debatable issue. In my experience you should either take it all or
leave it. If you start telling developers that "We're using C++ but we
don't use X, Y, Z", you are constraining the number of paradigms that
they are used to working in. Further you are now creating a
non-standard language that looks like C++ but isn't. The possibility
would then be open for subsequent maintenance or post design
programmers to start using forbidden features out of ignorance. This
obviously increases the possibility of errors in the code, especially
when the forbidden features are forbidden for 'subtle' reasons.
>> Since I do not regard dynamic memory allocation as a _good_ thing for
>> most hard embedded systems, I find this claim well founded :-)
>That depends entirely on the allocation mechanism, I would say. C++ allows the
>programmer to overload operators new and delete to define any form of allocation,
>such as distributing chunks of memory from a preallocated pool. There are RTOSes
>which have such mechanisms built in.
My biggest problem with dynamic memory allocation in embedded systems
is the fact that an indeterminate allocation mechanism exists!
If dynamic memory allocation is used the resulting program is
non-deterministic in the sense that it is impossible to guarantee that
there is enough memory resource to complete execution of the program
(under all paths for the program). C++ allocates memory for new
objects. New objects in C++ can be allocated as temporary objects
(i.e. out of the immediate awareness of the code writer). If I do not
have a hard disk or operating system in my embedded PC, how can I
write a C++ program, (where it is the compiler in cohorts with the OS
that allocates memory for objects) and know that my program will
execute without exhausting resources.
Besides which, the use of dynamic memory allocation seems to insipre a
kind of lazy attitude on software developers.I have seen serial port
processing routines that just increase their buffer sizes when they
fall behind in processing characters (and this in systems where the
processing of the characters is the core task!)
Granted that a large number of "real time" problems can be solved with
fast embedded PCs, but many of them could equally well (or better) be
solved with a microprocessor some RAM and an EPROM / FLASH program
store. When a programmer is faced with limited RAM, the unnecessary
use of dynamic memory allocation is a hinderance. Further, if the use
of dynamic memory allocation is prevented, the resulting code must be
written in a way such that memory resource requirments can be
calculated from examination of the source code and map file.
>> Except that a perfectly valid ANSI C program need not compile or
>> execute correctly under C++. Consequently, if it's a subset, it's a
>> pretty poor one!
>C code that does not compile under C++ is either very obscure, or it fails to comply
>with the stronger type checking requirements of C++. Neither case can be considered
>as essential to embedded systems programming. Or would you claim that embedded
>systems code has to be obscure or requires weak type checking?
My statement here rests upon the interpretation of 'subset'. I think a
perfectly good mathematical definition exists. Using that definition C
is not a subset of C++. I grant however that any C program that does
not compile under C++ is probably weak ;-)
regards John B.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-15 0:00 ` John Birch
@ 1999-01-16 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-18 0:00 ` dennison
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: robert_dewar @ 1999-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <369f81a9.31040093@news.demon.co.uk>,
johnb<nospam>@invision.co.uk wrote:
> Yes you would certainly gain some features that were not
> present in C. Whether it made sense to use a crippled C++
> in this way is a much more debatable issue. In my
> experience you should either take it all or leave it. If
> you start telling developers that "We're using C++ but we
> don't use X, Y, Z", you are constraining the number of
> paradigms that they are used to working in. Further you
> are now creating a non-standard language that looks like
> C++ but isn't. The possibility would then be open for
> subsequent maintenance or post design programmers to
> start using forbidden features out of ignorance.
Any shop that cannot establish and enforce coding
conventions is out of control and should not be doing
any software production at all. Any programmer who is
uncomfortable with following an established set of
conventions is also out of control and should be got
rid of. The industry simply cannot afford such a level
of incompetence.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-16 0:00 ` robert_dewar
@ 1999-01-18 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-18 0:00 ` robert_dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: dennison @ 1999-01-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <77ommt$9bo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> any software production at all. Any programmer who is
> uncomfortable with following an established set of
> conventions is also out of control and should be got
> rid of. The industry simply cannot afford such a level
> of incompetence.
Spoken like a man who gets to write the standards... :-)
T.E.D.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-18 0:00 ` dennison
@ 1999-01-18 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-19 0:00 ` Crazy Pete
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: robert_dewar @ 1999-01-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <77vhjf$nn9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> In article <77ommt$9bo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > any software production at all. Any programmer who is
> > uncomfortable with following an established set of
> > conventions is also out of control and should be got
> > rid of. The industry simply cannot afford such a level
> > of incompetence.
>
> Spoken like a man who gets to write the standards... :-)
Actually -- no ...
In ACT, if we have to make an arbitrary style decision,
like what capitalization to use, or what indentation, we
simply take a vote with the understanding that the result
of the vote is binding on everyone.
In the case of capitalization, I use to prefer all caps,
and I still like the fact that this convention makes it
easier to see identifier names in comments.
But the majority preferred mixed-case, so I changed. It
took a little while to get used to, but now I am used to
it and it would be hard to go back.
That's the real point, you quickly get used to any
particular style, so fighting furiously to maintain your
own style is a sign of non-cooperative behavior that is
unlikely to be the mark of a good team player.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-18 0:00 ` robert_dewar
@ 1999-01-19 0:00 ` Crazy Pete
1999-01-19 0:00 ` robert_dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Crazy Pete @ 1999-01-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
> In ACT, if we have to make an arbitrary style decision,
Just out of curiosity, what is ACT?
> That's the real point, you quickly get used to any
> particular style, so fighting furiously to maintain your
> own style is a sign of non-cooperative behavior that is
> unlikely to be the mark of a good team player.
I have watched this thread with some interest. I still prefer to be
generous and say this is all a matter of opinion. I am sure there are
many people who would not want to work in a shop where strict
standards regarding brace placement, number of columns to indent, etc.
are not enforced. I am also sure there are a number of others (myself
included) who would refuse to work in a shop where such strict
standards are enforced. Being as I began coding in C++ more than 11
years ago, I am usually the senior programmer on most projects and I
am expected to mentor more junior individuals. There are some
standards that have to be enforced, but we leave things like code
format (indentation, brace placement, etc.) up to the individual.
E.g. :
if ( boolCondition )
doSomething () ;
Would NEVER be allowed, because there are no braces, but we leave the
individual free to :
if ( boolCondition ) {
doSomething () ;
}
if ( boolCondition )
{
doSomething () ;
}
if ( boolCondition )
{
doSomething () ;
}
Or whatever else. I always try to encourage each person to "own"
individual modules and be responsible for them. I have found this
encourages a sense of pride in their work. By letting them determine
their own style they also enjoy what they are doing to a much greater
degree and learn faster and become more productive. Also as you get
to know your programmers and their coding styles, it becomes very easy
to maintain their code because you begin to associate their strengths
and weakness with a particular style. E.g. "This section of code has
braces placed as such, this must be Ben's code, Ben is very good with
X but keeps forgetting to Y, therefore let's check the Y first - yep
that was the problem!" Again I think this is all a matter of opinion.
I would not work in a shop such as Dr. Dewar advocates and Dr. Dewar
would not work in an environment where I would be happy. I will say
this, however, I DO have a reputation for getting projects in well
ahead of deadline and having the results work very well. But I think
this has more do to with my refusal to participate in any project
where Microsoft products are involved than it does with my refusal to
work in overly strict environments. ;-) BTW, I am a freelance
consultant, so I may choose which projects I work on and which I do
not.
Peace
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-19 0:00 ` Crazy Pete
@ 1999-01-19 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-20 0:00 ` Christopher Browne
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: robert_dewar @ 1999-01-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <YkGBP4MNXb2t-pn2-bjzMwxf6POdh@localhost>,
peter.garner@toward.com (Crazy Pete) wrote:
> > In ACT, if we have to make an arbitrary style decision,
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is ACT?
Ada Core Technologies
which provides support and development for GNAT
Professional, the fully supported commercial Ada 95
compiler and tool suite, based on GNU/gcc technology.
See www.gnat.com for details. Publicly available versions
of these compilers are available for downloading, go to
the FTP directories pub/gnat at cs.nyu.edu.
Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies
P.S. The sources are of course also available, so you can
have a look at them to understand what I mean by uniform
style.
P.P.S. I find it a very bad idea not to standardize on
brackets placement in C/C++. It is a perfect example of
an issue where there can be no advantage in inconsistency.
If you really have programmers who would quit rather than
follow shop standards on such minor details, they will be
unmanageable on more major things, and it is good to find
that out in advance.
Notice that management here to me is far more than just
A following the orders of B, it is figuring out how a team
works together in a cooperative and effective manner.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-19 0:00 ` robert_dewar
@ 1999-01-20 0:00 ` Christopher Browne
1999-01-19 0:00 ` bill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Browne @ 1999-01-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:00:22 GMT, robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com
<robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>P.P.S. I find it a very bad idea not to standardize on
>brackets placement in C/C++. It is a perfect example of
>an issue where there can be no advantage in inconsistency.
>If you really have programmers who would quit rather than
>follow shop standards on such minor details, they will be
>unmanageable on more major things, and it is good to find
>that out in advance.
And this is an example of putting concentration in the wrong place.
There are automated indentation utilities such as GNU Indent that know
how to cope with a wide variety of styles.
If there are programmers who prefer one format, and others that prefer
another, they can have a common format imposed on the CVS archives, and
then use what ever format they prefer personally on checked out copies.
If the organization or the people are so inflexible that something like
this isn't possible, then something's wrong.
--
"In elementary school, in case of fire you have to line up quietly in a
single file line from smallest to tallest. What is the logic? Do tall
people burn slower?" -- Warren Hutcherson
cbbrowne@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-20 0:00 ` Christopher Browne
@ 1999-01-19 0:00 ` bill
1999-01-20 0:00 ` dennison
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: bill @ 1999-01-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <6Oap2.16170$MW1.4028@news2.giganews.com>, cbbrowne@news.hex.net
says...
>
>
>There are automated indentation utilities such as GNU Indent that know
>how to cope with a wide variety of styles.
>
>If there are programmers who prefer one format, and others that prefer
>another, they can have a common format imposed on the CVS archives, and
>then use what ever format they prefer personally on checked out copies.
>If the organization or the people are so inflexible that something like
>this isn't possible, then something's wrong.
>
maybe eveyone should code in python. in python there are no braces and
no BEGIN END. the way the block is from is by indentation!
python has solved this life lone problem of where to places the braces!
I think however, having a uniform style is the best solution. one can really
get used to any style. I prefer
if a
{
...
}
but if I have to use
if a{
...
}
then I would. it is no big deal really !!
btw, since Ada has no braces, what is the problem? this only seems to
be C/C++/Java thing, since those uses braces.
Bill.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-19 0:00 ` bill
@ 1999-01-20 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-20 0:00 ` robert_dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: dennison @ 1999-01-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <783nnb$s9c@drn.newsguy.com>,
bill@nospam.com wrote:
> btw, since Ada has no braces, what is the problem? this only seems to
> be C/C++/Java thing, since those uses braces.
The braces are really just a cryptic shorthand for "begin" and "end", which
Ada does have.
A good example of an Ada syntax spat is listing procedure parameters in
function bodies. Say I have a fuction w/ 2 input parameters. Here are a few
of the ways I have seen that written out.
(1)
function foo (Left : in Integer; Right : in Float) return Boolean is
begin
...
end foo;
(2)
function foo (Left : in Integer;
Right : in Float) return Boolean is
begin
...
end foo;
(3)
function foo
(Left : in Integer;
Right : in Float) return Boolean is
(4)
function foo
(Left : in Integer;
Right : in Float
) return Boolean is
(5)
function foo
( Left : in Integer
; Right : in Float
) return Boolean is
(6)
function foo (Left : in Integer;
Right : in Float)
return Boolean
is
begin
...I could go on and on. And of course Ada "style guides" will typically
require one and only one of these formats to be used. A sensible programmer
would switch from style (1) or (2) when they run out of space on the line to
something like style (3) or (4). Remember that Ada developers tend to use
fairly long identifier names, so this can easily happen. But if the style
guide doesn't give you that lattitude, you might be forced to stick with the
other style but make one of the lines wrap to the next line. That's much
tougher to read. More typically the style guide gets ignored because
following it would be counter-productive. But that's an awfully slippery
slope...
T.E.D.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-20 0:00 ` dennison
@ 1999-01-20 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-20 0:00 ` dennison
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: robert_dewar @ 1999-01-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <784qvi$a0a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> A good example of an Ada syntax spat is listing procedure
> parameters in function bodies.
The GNAT style rules are as follows, and yes everyone
at ACT follows them:
function x (y : integer) return Boolean is
... declarations
begin
... statements
end x;
Above is used if it fits on one line
function x
(Hello : Integer;
Goodbye : Integer)
return Integer
is
... declarations
begin
... statements
end x;
if the prototopye takes more than one line.
> And of course Ada "style guides" will typically require
> one and only one of these formats to be used.
An old debater's trick, set up a silly strawman, and knock
it down. I never saw a set of guidelines that was obviously
wrong in this respect.
Remember
(a) no one is arguing in favor of demonstrably silly
style guidelines.
(b) no one will accept that absurd notion that all style
guidelines are bound to be demonstrably silly.
So please don't produce examples of idiotic rules as a
reason to have no rules!!!!!!
> More typically the style guide gets ignored because
> following it would be counter-productive. But that's an
> awfully slippery slope...
Indeed, which is why I think failure to follow style guide
lines should not for a moment be tolerated. If the problem
is that there is something wrong with the guidelines, fix
them, don't ignore them!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-20 0:00 ` robert_dewar
@ 1999-01-20 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: dennison @ 1999-01-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <78549k$iqv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <784qvi$a0a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> The GNAT style rules are as follows, and yes everyone
> at ACT follows them:
>
> function x (y : integer) return Boolean is
> ... declarations
> begin
> ... statements
> end x;
>
> Above is used if it fits on one line
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good rule.
>
> function x
> (Hello : Integer;
> Goodbye : Integer)
> return Integer
I do have to admit, I see no reason why following this guideline should be a
big problem for anyone (except perhaps the leading ';' devotees). I would
have a tough time at first not lining up the ':'s. I'm pretty used to the
implicit "in"s being supplied too.
T.E.D.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-20 0:00 ` dennison
@ 1999-01-21 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Al Christians
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Heaney @ 1999-01-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
dennison@telepath.com writes:
> I do have to admit, I see no reason why following this guideline should be a
> big problem for anyone (except perhaps the leading ';' devotees). I would
> have a tough time at first not lining up the ':'s.
If you use emacs, then move to the parameter list, type C-c C-f, and
life is good...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
@ 1999-01-21 0:00 ` Al Christians
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Al Christians @ 1999-01-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Matthew Heaney wrote:
>
> dennison@telepath.com writes:
>
> > I do have to admit, I see no reason why following this guideline should be a
> > big problem for anyone (except perhaps the leading ';' devotees). I would
> > have a tough time at first not lining up the ':'s.
>
> If you use emacs, then move to the parameter list, type C-c C-f, and
> life is good...
If I'm the boss, I'm going to ban any editor that encourages my staff
to take the time to reformat code every time they check it in or out.
I'm going to get ever-lovin' livid if a macrographical error at this
point introduces a bug into a product. And I'm going to start handing
out applications for employment over at the post office if (a) the guy
who is supposed to find the bug has to reformat the code again before
he can start looking for it, or (b) each of the two coders who might
have created the bug insists that the other one did it when he
re-formatted their perfectly good code.
When everything is going well, it is. But in the software business,
you have to do a little risk management. This is the kind of
distraction
that can make a bad situation much worse. Robert Dewar is not only
beyond criticism on this one, he's largely correct.
Al
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Al Christians
@ 1999-01-21 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Al Christians
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Heaney @ 1999-01-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> writes:
> Matthew Heaney wrote:
> >
> > dennison@telepath.com writes:
> >
> > > I do have to admit, I see no reason why following this guideline should be a
> > > big problem for anyone (except perhaps the leading ';' devotees). I would
> > > have a tough time at first not lining up the ':'s.
> >
> > If you use emacs, then move to the parameter list, type C-c C-f, and
> > life is good...
>
> If I'm the boss, I'm going to ban any editor that encourages my staff
> to take the time to reformat code every time they check it in or out.
That is certainly not what I was referring to! You're not using emacs?
C-c C-f runs the command ada-format-paramlist, which reformats a
parameter list of a subprogram or task entry.
All it does is turn this:
procedure Push
(Item : in Item_Type;
On : in out Stack_Type);
into this:
procedure Push
(Item : in Item_Type;
On : in out Stack_Type);
What's the problem?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
@ 1999-01-21 0:00 ` Al Christians
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Al Christians @ 1999-01-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Matthew Heaney wrote:
>
>
> procedure Push
> (Item : in Item_Type;
> On : in out Stack_Type);
>
> into this:
>
> procedure Push
> (Item : in Item_Type;
> On : in out Stack_Type);
>
> What's the problem?
If that's just a way to make sure that newly-written code complies
with a standard before it gets stored, there is no problem.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought that you were saying that
the power of C-c C-f and similar automated features was sufficient
to allow wide variation in working copies of code based on individual
programmer preferences without any significant disadvantages. I
don't think that's true; significant disadvantages are: 1) too much
time wasted de-standardizing code after check-out, 2) too much time
wasted re-standardizing code before check-in, 3) chance of error being
introduced in 1) and 2), and 4) likelihood that after code has gone
through automated standardization, it will not be exactly identical to
previous standardized version, leading to many false deltas found by
diff.
Al
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Al Christians
@ 1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-21 0:00 ` bill_1
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Heaney @ 1999-01-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> writes:
> Matthew Heaney wrote:
> >
> >
> > procedure Push
> > (Item : in Item_Type;
> > On : in out Stack_Type);
> >
> > into this:
> >
> > procedure Push
> > (Item : in Item_Type;
> > On : in out Stack_Type);
> >
> > What's the problem?
>
> If that's just a way to make sure that newly-written code complies
> with a standard before it gets stored, there is no problem.
Yes, that is that case. You type in the declaration "loosely," as in
the former declaration above, type C-c C-f when you're done typing that
declaration, and then you get the latter declaration.
When you're all done with your edits, and all your code is compliant
with coding standards, then you check it back in.
> Perhaps I misunderstood.
Yes.
> I thought that you were saying that the power of C-c C-f and similar
> automated features was sufficient to allow wide variation in working
> copies of code based on individual programmer preferences without any
> significant disadvantages.
No.
> I don't think that's true; significant disadvantages are: 1) too much
> time wasted de-standardizing code after check-out, 2) too much time
> wasted re-standardizing code before check-in, 3) chance of error being
> introduced in 1) and 2), and 4) likelihood that after code has gone
> through automated standardization, it will not be exactly identical to
> previous standardized version, leading to many false deltas found by
> diff.
I agree with Robert Dewar here. Everyone should follow a standard. Get
rid of pretty printers and other automatic code formatters. Tools like
that are useless, and only promote programmer laziness and divisiveness.
Emacs is the only tool you need to edit program text.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
@ 1999-01-21 0:00 ` bill_1
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: bill_1 @ 1999-01-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <m3n23c3v8b.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>, Matthew says...
>
>> > What's the problem?
>>
>> If that's just a way to make sure that newly-written code complies
>> with a standard before it gets stored, there is no problem.
>
>Yes, that is that case. You type in the declaration "loosely," as in
>the former declaration above, type C-c C-f when you're done typing that
>declaration, and then you get the latter declaration.
>
>When you're all done with your edits, and all your code is compliant
>with coding standards, then you check it back in.
>
Not only this is a good idea, but how else will one makes sure their
code is formatted in consistant way other than using a standard formating
pattern with the help of a tool?
I beleive the best solution is as shown above.
Eveyone will agree on ONE standard format.
Then before the code is checked in, one enters few commands to format the
code to this common format.
I can't imagine having to format the code by hand all the time. my eyes
does not always measure the amount of space correctly, and it is a waste
of time to having to do this by hand all the time, when with one or two
simple command, the code can be transformed into this common format much
faster.
Bill.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
1999-01-21 0:00 ` bill_1
@ 1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java) dennison
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Heaney @ 1999-01-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
bill_1@nospam.com writes:
> In article <m3n23c3v8b.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>, Matthew says...
> >
> >When you're all done with your edits, and all your code is compliant
> >with coding standards, then you check it back in.
> >
>
> Not only this is a good idea, but how else will one makes sure their
> code is formatted in consistant way other than using a standard formating
> pattern with the help of a tool?
>
> I beleive the best solution is as shown above.
>
> Eveyone will agree on ONE standard format.
>
> Then before the code is checked in, one enters few commands to format the
> code to this common format.
Not quite. The standards-compliant formatting is done on-the-fly, not
just before you check the code in.
When using emacs, using C-j instead of RET indents the current line to
its proper place, and then moves you to the next line, with the cursor
properly indented.
For more complex formatting, you may have to issue another key sequence
to format code. For example:
C-c C-w to format the with statements ala ACT:
with Pretty; use Pretty;
with Girl; use Girl;
C-C C-r to format a record declaration, i.e. go from this:
type T is
record
Isnt_This_Where : Integer;
We_Just : Float;
Came_In_Another : Brick;
In_The_Wall : Pink;
end record;
to this
type T is
record
Isnt_This_Where : Integer;
We_Just : Float;
Came_In_Another : Brick;
In_The_Wall : Pink;
end record;
It's never necessary to lay this out by hand. You issue the command as
soon as you (loosely) type the record declaration in, and then emacs
will properly format it.
On my list of things to do is teach emacs (ada-mode) how to format a
record representation clause.
So it's never the case that I type in the code without any formatting,
and then let emacs just automatically reformat it to compliance at
check-in time. The code gets properly formatted on-the-fly, at the time
of writing.
And of course, absolutely no tabs are inserted at any time in the file.
Tabs do nothing except reek havoc with formatting algorithms, and cause
very strange-looking print jobs. Thank goodness, er, I mean, RMS, for
untabify.
I'm going to be taking over maintenance of ada-mode in another month or
so. If you have any suggestions for me, let me know.
Matt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread* Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
@ 1999-01-22 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-22 0:00 ` dennison
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 46+ messages in thread
From: dennison @ 1999-01-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <m3hftjstg6.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> I'm going to be taking over maintenance of ada-mode in another month or
> so. If you have any suggestions for me, let me know.
I'd like to see a submode or new mode for editing gnat.adc files. But I
suppose I might be the only person who would use it.
T.E.D.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java) dennison
@ 1999-01-22 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
2 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread
From: dennison @ 1999-01-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <m3hftjstg6.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> I'm going to be taking over maintenance of ada-mode in another month or
> so. If you have any suggestions for me, let me know.
I may not be using the latest ada-mode, so if this is already in there please
forgive me....
The "other file" feature that automagicly generates stubbed bodies for spec
routines is incredibly useful. But it also copies non-subprogram declarations
over into the body. Those just have be be removed again by a human. I'd like
to see just the subprograms that get expanded copied over (and perhaps
comment blocks).
I'd also like to see the capability expanded somewhat. I always end up having
to add a subprogram or two afterwards. It'd be awfully nice to have a "create
a stub in the other file for the declaration under the cursor" function.
T.E.D.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java) dennison
1999-01-22 0:00 ` dennison
@ 1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-24 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-25 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
2 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread
From: David C. Hoos, Sr. @ 1999-01-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
dennison@telepath.com wrote in message <78a27f$rp4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <m3hftjstg6.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
> Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm going to be taking over maintenance of ada-mode in another month or
>> so. If you have any suggestions for me, let me know.
>
>I'd like to see a submode or new mode for editing gnat.adc files. But I
>suppose I might be the only person who would use it.
>
Matt,
Glad to have a name attached to the maintenance/fixing of ada-mode.
ada-mode 3.0 is a quantum leap from 2.28, but there are still a few niggling
problems -- e.g., indentation doesn't work right in protected types; in some
contexts parameter lists are not recognized as parameter lists, etc.
As I encounter specific cases I'll send them to you. I hadn't wanted to
bother ACT with it, since getting the executable-generation tools right is
more important.
David C. Hoos, sr.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
@ 1999-01-24 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-28 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-25 0:00 ` John McCabe
1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: dewar @ 1999-01-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <78age5$p8v@hobbes.crc.com>,
"David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote:
> As I encounter specific cases I'll send them to you. I
> hadn't wanted to bother ACT with it, since getting the
> executable-generation tools right is
> more important.
ACT spends considerable resources on updating and improving
Ada mode, since EMACS is at the center of one of our
integrated development environments, so it is most
certainly worth sending suggestions to us. We will of
course acquire useful suggestions from wherever we see
them, but sending mail to report@gnat.com is certainly the
most direct way to make specific suggestions to us.
In any case I suggest waiting till you see the latest 3.11
version, since that represents a big jump in capability
(really 3.11 is the first version of Ada mode that we
consider to begin to have the needed functionality).
Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-24 0:00 ` dewar
@ 1999-01-28 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-29 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
0 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread
From: John McCabe @ 1999-01-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> ACT spends considerable resources on updating and improving
> Ada mode, since EMACS is at the center of one of our
> integrated development environments, so it is most
> certainly worth sending suggestions to us.
Well it's a pity you didn't start off with the latest version of
ada-mode before modifying it to produce the 3.1 version on the
cs.nyu.edu site. There are quite a few bugs in the version that's there,
some of which have already been fixed in the last version that was
distributed to the emacs ada-mode mailing list. Also, there's a comment
from your bloke about having done a major rewrite of the indenting code
- I can see no evidence of a major rewrite, all he's done is take out a
couple of bits (i.e. references to GEI and ada-format) that probably
nobody used anyway!
> In any case I suggest waiting till you see the latest 3.11
> version, since that represents a big jump in capability
> (really 3.11 is the first version of Ada mode that we
> consider to begin to have the needed functionality).
Well if you make an announcement on this newsgroup, I'll keep an eye out
for it and see whether you've left any of the bugs in that I know about.
John
PS. A couple of suggestions for 3.1...
Try:
1) Set ada-case-attribute to ada-loose-case-word, ada-case-keyword to
downcase word.
Open a new file and enter some Ada code.
Insert a character constant e.g. 'a'
What happens when you put the closing "'" on the character constant? I
would expect you to get 'A'
2) Insert a line of code that uses the 'Access attribute.
Select the whole buffer and the ada-adjust-caase-region.
What happens to 'access? does it stay as 'Access or become 'access? (The
first case is correct - second is wrong.
3) finally put in a procedure specification eg.
procedure x_z (y : in integer);
place point on the y.
M-x eval-expression
(ada-in-paramlist-p)
result should be t. It is a bug (that I know how to fix) if you get nil.
If you are seeing any of this behaviour and want to know how to fix it,
please let me know.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-28 0:00 ` John McCabe
@ 1999-01-29 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: dewar @ 1999-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <36B0FEF4.381F@gecm.com>,
John McCabe <john.mccabe@gecm.com> wrote:
> dewar@gnat.com wrote:
>
> > ACT spends considerable resources on updating and
> > improving
> > Ada mode, since EMACS is at the center of one of our
> > integrated development environments, so it is most
> > certainly worth sending suggestions to us.
>
> Well it's a pity you didn't start off with the latest
> version of ada-mode before modifying it to produce the
> 3.1 version on the cs.nyu.edu site.
Remember that the sources for 3.11 were frozen a while ago
(a couple of months), so you are not seeing an up to date
snap shot here! But in any case, I would think that emacs
stuff of this kind should be VERY amenable to the
let-the-world-play-and-improve mode of open source software
(unlike perhaps the visibility analysis circuitry of the
front end), so we welcome any improvements etc, and we will
be happy to post any new versions at the cs.nyu.edu site.
In fact I think Marcus Kuhn will be organizing this kind of
activity around the Linux port, and this is exactly the
sort of area where we should see that the community can do
a better job than any one person :-)
The really important new functionality is the connection to
the new cross-referencing information in the ali file. Even
that is fairly straightforward, since the ali formats are
well documented (see the file lib-writ.adb).
At ACT, our work on the EMACS Ada mode is focussed on what
our own internal EMACS users want and what our customers
want, but this is very definitely an area where lots of
people have lots of useful ideas, and where lots of people
know enough technically about how things are done to
contribute.
Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-29 0:00 ` dewar
@ 1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-30 0:00 ` robert_dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: John McCabe @ 1999-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> In article <36B0FEF4.381F@gecm.com>,
> John McCabe <john.mccabe@gecm.com> wrote:
> > > ACT spends considerable resources on updating and
> > > improving
> > > Ada mode, since EMACS is at the center of one of our
> > > integrated development environments, so it is most
> > > certainly worth sending suggestions to us.
> > Well it's a pity you didn't start off with the latest
> > version of ada-mode before modifying it to produce the
> > 3.1 version on the cs.nyu.edu site.
> Remember that the sources for 3.11 were frozen a while ago
> (a couple of months), so you are not seeing an up to date
> snap shot here!
Granted, but even then V2.28 had been available from the ada-mode
mailing list for quite a loong time.
> But in any case, I would think that emacs
> stuff of this kind should be VERY amenable to the
> let-the-world-play-and-improve mode of open source software
> front end), so we welcome any improvements etc, and we will
> be happy to post any new versions at the cs.nyu.edu site.
> In fact I think Marcus Kuhn will be organizing this kind of
> activity around the Linux port, and this is exactly the
> sort of area where we should see that the community can do
> a better job than any one person :-)
I think we need to make sure we know who is going to be maintaining
ada-mode then. Rolf Ebert did a brilliant job of it, but won't be doing
it any longer. Latest news on this group was that Matt Heaney would be
doing it. I heard this only a day or two after I had contacted Rolf to
find out what was happening with ada-mode, and he said he was still
looking for someone to take over maintenance.
So if anyone out there knows and definitive detail, let us know. You
could start off by posting to ada-mode@email.enst.fr.
> The really important new functionality is the connection to
> the new cross-referencing information in the ali file. Even
> that is fairly straightforward, since the ali formats are
> well documented (see the file lib-writ.adb).
I was using ada-xref.el a couple of years ago with Emacs 19.34 and GNAT
3.05.
> At ACT, our work on the EMACS Ada mode is focussed on what
> our own internal EMACS users want and what our customers
> want, but this is very definitely an area where lots of
> people have lots of useful ideas, and where lots of people
> know enough technically about how things are done to
> contribute.
I am glad you look at it that way and I will be happy to help with
comments, suggestions and bugfixes, especially at the moment until we
can sort out some method of merging the work that Rolf Ebert put in
after V2.27, the work you are doing, as well as the adjustments, fixes
and additions that I and many other ada-mode users have put into their
own versions.
Best Regards
John
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
@ 1999-01-30 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-30 0:00 ` John McCabe
0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: robert_dewar @ 1999-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <36B2381E.70A@gecm.com>,
> I think we need to make sure we know who is going to be
> maintaining ada-mode then. Rolf Ebert did a brilliant job
> of it, but won't be doing it any longer. Latest news on
> this group was that Matt Heaney would be doing it. I
> heard this only a day or two after I had contacted Rolf
> to find out what was happening with ada-mode, and he said
> he was still looking for someone to take over
> maintenance.
Well most certainly ACT will be continuing to maintain our
version, especially as long as there is confusion as to
whether anyone else is even trying to fill this role, and
how much time they may have.
For us, the Ada aware version of EMACS is one of the
critical parts of our technology, since at this stage it
really begins to provide a very attractive integrated
development environment, that many of our big customers
are using.
So we will most certainly continue that development. We are
happy to support any indepedent efforts by contributing our
ideas and code, but just as Cygnus maintains versions of
gdb and gcc independent of EGCS to meet the needs of their
customers, we need to maintain a version that is under our
control and meets our customer needs. What will be nice is
if we an avoid divergence of the code bases (just as Cygnus
does, i.e. by resynchronizing every now and then), and we
should all work towards that.
But one problem here is that editor related matters tend to
generate lots of diverse and strongly held ideas, so it is
not necessarily so easy to guarantee convergence.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-30 0:00 ` robert_dewar
@ 1999-01-30 0:00 ` John McCabe
0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread
From: John McCabe @ 1999-01-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Well most certainly ACT will be continuing to maintain our
>version, especially as long as there is confusion as to
>whether anyone else is even trying to fill this role, and
>how much time they may have.
That's good to know, but would it be worth changing it's name to
GNAT-Mode to reduce confusion? It would then be up to whoever's using
your software to make sure they have the correct setup in their .emacs
to use GNAT-mode instead of ada-mode.
>For us, the Ada aware version of EMACS is one of the
>critical parts of our technology, since at this stage it
>really begins to provide a very attractive integrated
>development environment, that many of our big customers
>are using.
Having used Emacs with GNAT on SGI IRIX, I would agree with your views
here.
>So we will most certainly continue that development. We are
>happy to support any indepedent efforts by contributing our
>ideas and code, but just as Cygnus maintains versions of
>gdb and gcc independent of EGCS to meet the needs of their
>customers, we need to maintain a version that is under our
>control and meets our customer needs.
From a purely language based point of view, I would expect that your
customers and the Ada community at large probably hold very similar
views on what is needed from ada-mode. At a tool (compiler, debugger
etc) level the requirement is likely to diverge, but really the same
basic requirements regarding launching compilation, linking, debugging
and so on are likely to be required for any compiler, with a superset
of vendor dependant stuff like handling of libaries, cross-referencing
and so on.
It has been mentioned here a couple of times that it would be best to
keep GNAT specific code out of the ada-mode.el code base. All that is
then needed then would be to use elisp's equivalent of
access-to-subprogram types using (funcall...) etc to produce a type of
API that could be used to call either default functions contained
within ada-mode.el, or a particular vendor's implementation of those
functions specific to their product. It would be nice to get more
vendors involved actually so that the API ended up being as useful as
possible. Personally, I can't see why any vendor really needs to
develop their own editing technology with ada-mode around. I'm using
ObjectAda at the moment and, to be honest, their default editor is
completely clueless compared to Emacs with ada-mode.
> What will be nice is if we an avoid divergence of the code bases (just
> as Cygnus does, i.e. by resynchronizing every now and then), and we
> should all work towards that.
I agree that we should avoid divergence of the code bases which is why
I believe that all vendor/tool specific code should be separate from
ada-mode.el. Again, from a language point of view, I don't think there
would be too much difficulty in maintaining this state, or ada-mode
itself.
>But one problem here is that editor related matters tend to
>generate lots of diverse and strongly held ideas, so it is
>not necessarily so easy to guarantee convergence.
Agreed, but generally some compromise, or configurale option can be
put in place that most users will be happy with.
Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-28 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-29 0:00 ` dewar
@ 1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
1 sibling, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread
From: John McCabe @ 1999-01-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
John McCabe wrote:
> Also, there's a comment
> from your bloke about having done a major rewrite of the indenting code
> - I can see no evidence of a major rewrite, all he's done is take out a
> couple of bits (i.e. references to GEI and ada-format) that probably
> nobody used anyway!
I'd like to apologise to Emmanuel Briot for this comment. I failed to
notice that this was something that was already in V2.27 of ada-mode
when I was comparing his Version 3.1 with my V2.28.
Sorry Emmanuel.
Best Regards
John
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-24 0:00 ` dewar
@ 1999-01-25 0:00 ` John McCabe
[not found] ` <36afc1ec.20165240@news.geccs.gecm.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: John McCabe @ 1999-01-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
"David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote:
>Glad to have a name attached to the maintenance/fixing of ada-mode.
>
>ada-mode 3.0 is a quantum leap from 2.28, but there are still a few niggling
>problems -- e.g., indentation doesn't work right in protected types; in some
>contexts parameter lists are not recognized as parameter lists, etc.
What on earth is ada-mode 3.0? First I've heard of it. Where can I get
it?
TIA
Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java) dennison
1999-01-22 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
@ 1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-22 0:00 ` dennison
2 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Heaney @ 1999-01-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
dennison@telepath.com writes:
> In article <m3hftjstg6.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
> Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to be taking over maintenance of ada-mode in another month or
> > so. If you have any suggestions for me, let me know.
>
> I'd like to see a submode or new mode for editing gnat.adc files. But I
> suppose I might be the only person who would use it.
What's a gnat.adc file?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
@ 1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-24 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-22 0:00 ` dennison
1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread
From: David C. Hoos, Sr. @ 1999-01-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Matthew Heaney wrote in message ...
>dennison@telepath.com writes:
>
>> In article <m3hftjstg6.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
>> Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm going to be taking over maintenance of ada-mode in another month or
>> > so. If you have any suggestions for me, let me know.
>>
>> I'd like to see a submode or new mode for editing gnat.adc files. But I
>> suppose I might be the only person who would use it.
>
>What's a gnat.adc file?
>
Surprisingly, this information is found in the Gnat User's Guide in the
obsurely-named section titled "The gnat.adc file," viz.:
The gnat.adc file
In GNAT a compilation environment is defined by the current directory at the
time that a compile command is given. This current directory is searched for
a file whose name is `gnat.adc'. If this file is present, it is expected to
contain one or more configuration pragmas that will be applied to the
current compilation.
Configuration pragmas may be entered into the `gnat.adc' file either by
running gnatchop on a source file that consists only of configuration
pragmas, or more conveniently by direct editing of the `gnat.adc' file,
which is a standard format source file.
A search of the User's guide for ".adc" will bring to light
several other references to this file.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
@ 1999-01-24 0:00 ` robert_dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread
From: robert_dewar @ 1999-01-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <78ag05$p23@hobbes.crc.com>,
"David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote:
> Surprisingly, this information is found in the Gnat
> User's Guide in the obsurely-named section titled "The
> gnat.adc file," viz.:
Ah, now David is giving away his secret sources of
information as well :-)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
@ 1999-01-22 0:00 ` dennison
1 sibling, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread
From: dennison @ 1999-01-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <m37lufb56j.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> dennison@telepath.com writes:
>
> > In article <m3hftjstg6.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
> > Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm going to be taking over maintenance of ada-mode in another month or
> > > so. If you have any suggestions for me, let me know.
> >
> > I'd like to see a submode or new mode for editing gnat.adc files. But I
> > suppose I might be the only person who would use it.
>
> What's a gnat.adc file?
Its the standard file in gnat for handling configuration pragmas. See
http://www.gnat.com/gnat_ug.html#SEC69
It appears my assesment of its frequency of use by folks other than myself was
on the mark...
T.E.D.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-02-07 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-01-26 0:00 Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java) bourguet
1999-01-26 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-27 0:00 ` bourguet
1999-01-27 0:00 ` John McCabe
[not found] ` <36affcb4.14065782@news.geccs.gecm.com>
1999-01-27 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-30 0:00 ` dewar
[not found] ` <36b7695a.2630918@news.geccs.gecm.com>
1999-02-02 0:00 ` Chris Morgan
1999-02-03 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-02-03 0:00 ` Chris Morgan
1999-02-04 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-02-04 0:00 ` Chris Morgan
1999-02-05 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-02-04 0:00 ` EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance dewar
1999-02-04 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-05 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-05 0:00 ` briot
1999-02-05 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-05 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-02-05 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-02-05 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-02-05 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-05 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-02-07 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1999-01-12 0:00 Ada vs C++ vs Java Leszek Sczaniecki
1999-01-13 0:00 ` Erik Funkenbusch
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
1999-01-14 0:00 ` John Birch
1999-01-15 0:00 ` Gerhard Menzl
1999-01-15 0:00 ` John Birch
1999-01-16 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-18 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-18 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-19 0:00 ` Crazy Pete
1999-01-19 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-20 0:00 ` Christopher Browne
1999-01-19 0:00 ` bill
1999-01-20 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-20 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-20 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Al Christians
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-21 0:00 ` Al Christians
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-21 0:00 ` bill_1
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java) dennison
1999-01-22 0:00 ` dennison
1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-24 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-28 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-29 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-30 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-30 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-25 0:00 ` John McCabe
[not found] ` <36afc1ec.20165240@news.geccs.gecm.com>
1999-01-26 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-27 0:00 ` dennison
[not found] ` <36b019e5.897220@news.geccs.gecm.com>
1999-01-28 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-29 0:00 ` dewar
1999-01-29 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu
1999-01-30 0:00 ` John McCabe
[not found] ` <36b170cd.1793333@news.geccs.gecm.com>
1999-01-29 0:00 ` John McCabe
1999-01-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-01-24 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-22 0:00 ` dennison
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox