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: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-24 12:34:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!green.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!cox.net!news-xfer.cox.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4012D6EB.9030801@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor (Was: why ada is so unpopular ?) References: <40126EA0.9090308@noplace.com> <9LzQb.143270$na.228277@attbi_s04> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:34:55 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.25.83 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1074976495 209.165.25.83 (Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:34:55 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:34:55 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4783 Date: 2004-01-24T20:34:55+00:00 List-Id: Oh yes! Of course! I agree 1000%! I've *seen* and had to maintain things where the C preprocessor was abused to the point where one could spend days trying to decipher macros and all that. Let's not even start with #include chains! I absolutely don't want something that would turn into an unholy mess. I think some relatively simple directive(s) that could give you one version of something when its Compiler A and another version of something if its Compiler B (or likewise for possibly unsupported packages, or OS dependencies) that would be enough to minimize the fuss when you've got relatively small & trivial things to go fix. Of course a lot of these things have a nasty habbit of growing along the way into something way beyond the original intent. MDC tmoran@acm.org wrote: >>and you're going "Damnation! If I just had one little itsy-bitsy, >>insignificant, tiny conditional compilation directive here, I'd save > > If the preprocessor was limited to something like > --Gnat_Win32 <> > --ObjectAda_Linux <> > I would agree that's helpful. But as soon as the preprocessor gets > non-trivial - nested conditionals, includes, etc - it's just begging for > idiots (and even some otherwise non-idiots) to create a mess. I've seen C > code from large and well known companies that is nearly impenetrable due > to overuse of the preprocessor. If they had spent 1/10 the effort on good > design-for-multiple-systems, it would have been maintainable, but it's > much easier to add a (preprocessor) tweak here and there and let the mess > grow. And the answer "good programmers will not misuse the language" > doesn't fly very well in c.l.a. -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================