Re: Why do so many companies use Apex?

[Jerry Petrey <"jdpetrey<NOSPAM>"@west.raytheon.com>]

Phaedrus wrote:
> 
> I've been developing with Ada since the mid 80's, and I don't think
> that I've ever encountered a development environment as bad as
> the Apex Ada environment.
> 
> 1. It's SLOW, any other compiler seems to fly by comparison.  Remember
> using Vax Ada?  Yeah, it's like that.  It'll seem like geologic time if you're
> used to using Verdix.
> 2. Have you ever seen an environment that requires so much care and
> feeding?  Most companies hire consultants to be the "Rational Toolsmith",
> which adds another large chunk of cash to the huge mound that this turkey costs.
> 3. It's EXPENSIVE.   Not only do they charge big bucks for it, but then the
> license server doesn't release the licenses, so if you really want your group to
> be effective you'd better buy even MORE copies.
> 4. This thing has a terrible learning curve, but not to use the compiler, but
> just
> to set up a "tower".  (Oh yeah, better get used to obscure references to words
> that they've appropriated for their own use.  Seems kind of like Dianetics in
> that
> respect, and scares me pretty much the same way.) Better be able to shell out
> big bucks to send your folks to classes, and classes, and classes...
> 5. Ever try to use it to debug on the target?  Yikes!  If you've ever used a
> nice
> environment (I recommend the Green Hills compiler, it's small, friendly, and
> MUCH cheaper!) then you'll be astounded at how bad this thing is for debugging
> on the target.  Assuming that you can actually connect to the target, that is.
> I did
> mention that it's slow, right?
> 6. It's a pig.  Every third keypress seems to generate another swarm of windows,
> and pretty soon even the best workstation is performing like a 286.  And you had
> better have a pretty big screen, those windows start getting buried pretty fast.
> Also,
> it takes quite a while to load, I usually start it, then go for coffee, and when
> I get back
> it's finally loaded.
> 
> So, why do people keep buying this turkey?  And don't try and give me that,
> "It's okay
> once you get used to it" argument, would you like a hot stove if you sat on it
> long
> enough?  Granted, with Rational buying out most of the other Ada compiler
> companies
> (Can anybody say "antitrust"?  Would somebody PLEASE say it to Rational?  In an
> official way, if possible.) there aren't many vendors left to buy from, but even
> old Vax
> Ada kicks it's butt for development.
> 
> Phaedrus


I have been using Rational Apex for many years on a number of different
projects
and I have found it to be the best thing that ever happened to Ada.  It
is
expensive but well worth it if it is used right (many times it is not,
however).
In one product you have all the integrated tools you need - Ada
compiler, linker,
Ada sensitive editor, CM tool, Target compiler interface, a host of
analysis tools,
coverage analysis tools, etc.

If your subsystems and views are set up properly (import and export
relationships),
Apex will enforce your system architecture by not allowing improper
dependencies.
Once your system is compiled, with one click you can visit any
identifier or subprogram
to see where it is defined.

I find it very fast in compilation speed (a lot faster than our target
compiler).
If you have the problems you mention, I suggest you look at getting some
training
on its use - it is well worth the investment.  Also look at your network
- many
times that is the bottleneck.

I can't imagine handling a large project in Ada without a tool like
Apex.  In fact,
I would not work on one that didn't use Apex.  I have seen how much it
can help
a large project to be successful and I would prefer not to waste my time
struggling
with primitive tools.

Jerry
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Jerry Petrey                                                
-- Senior Principal Systems Engineer - Navigation, Guidance, & Control
-- Raytheon Missile Systems          - Member Team Ada & Team Forth
-- NOTE: please remove <NOSPAM> in email address to
reply                  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------