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,ce1e7170ab2bc91c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-27 05:22:04 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!news-feed.riddles.org.uk!freenix!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!lsanca1-snf1!news.gtei.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3AC085BF.46A21DE4@earthlink.net> From: "Marc A. Criley" Organization: Quadrus Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why do so many companies use Apex? References: <_pNv6.15345$ue1.1278082@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3ABFB3AD.DF3AA617@lmco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:19:08 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 158.252.122.145 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 985699148 158.252.122.145 (Tue, 27 Mar 2001 05:19:08 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 05:19:08 PST Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6106 Date: 2001-03-27T13:19:08+00:00 List-Id: Corey Ashford wrote: > > One of the reasons that Apex appears to be slower than other > compilers is that it is actually doing more work for you, to > save you time down the road. Apex retains persistent compilation > information about units that it can use later to determine which > units exactly needs to be recompiled when a change is made to > any one of them. As a simple example, in other compilers, changing > a comment in oft-with'd spec will cause massive recompilation. > In Apex, the compiler will realize that there are no differences > in the peristent compilation information, and thus no recompilation > needs to take place. Also, this persistent information is used > to allow you easily navigate your source code to find object and > type definitions. > > As for inventing new terminology, Rational decided that the > bare language didn't have enough structure to solve all the > engineering and maintainance problems that users face. So a new > CM system was created, and to efficiently talk about it, names > were assigned to parts of the system. > > Disclaimer: I work for Rational. > > Corey Ashford > Rational Software Corp. A lukewarm contrary opinion to the Apex bashing: I've used Apex on both a very large project (1.5M SLOC) and a smallish one (<200K). I didn't find it all that onerous to work with. The only learning curve issue was understanding how to set up and manage subsystems, which I was comfortable with in a day or two. And the conceptual underpinnings of CM are pretty stable now, so that's pretty much a yawner where all you have to do is pick up the system's terminology. The vendor support was decent, the navigation tools for browsing the code worked well, and certainly the avoidance of unnecessary compilation was a good thing to have. My only general complaint about Apex was that while the IDE was quite advanced for the late 80s, when I first saw it demonstrated, I've seen very little evolution since then, so it's gotten rather creaky over the years. Marc A. Criley Senior Staff Engineer Quadrus Corporation www.quadruscorp.com