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: 2004-01-27 04:24:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!elnk-pas-nf1!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: <40165875.4020203@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: <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com> <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> <400E72F9.8060501@noplace.com> <100upo7ln5e3k59@corp.supernews.com> <400FC8E8.2040100@noplace.com> <4011127C.4030801@noplace.com> <_bdQb.24861$zj7.15527@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:24:18 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.26.63 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1075206258 209.165.26.63 (Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:24:18 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:24:18 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4896 Date: 2004-01-27T12:24:18+00:00 List-Id: Just about any language feature can be abused. What about Unchecked_Conversion? What about address clauses to achieve overlays? What about rep clauses in general? Any of these things (and more!) could be criticized as leading to "Bad Software Engineering" - but they serve a useful purpose and the developer is advised to use them judiciously. Anyone who spatters his code all over with conditional compilation directives isn't working to a proper design. But how would that be different than spattering the code all over with direct calls to an OS? Given that such style leads to lack of portability, should we disallow such a capability? Or perhaps we trust that the wise developer will isolate the OS dependencies down at some low level that is relatively easily replaced should the code move or OS change? Same with conditional compilation - trust that the wise developer will use it judiciously where it makes sense. MDC Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > But this last statement of yours seems to imply: > > "conditionally compiled code = poorly written SW" > > If so, I would have to simply disagree. > -- ====================================================================== 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 ======================================================================