Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor (Was: why ada is so unpopular ?)

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:

> I am not suggesting for a minute that the whole world needs to
> release software in the same manner. It doesn't seem to bother
> you to maintain multiple instances of similar code. I personally
> hate it and would much rather have it centralized. We can disagree
> on the preference.

As long as you understand that the people arguing on both sides here 
actually know what they are talking about.  Right now I don't do much 
embedded work. Randy's work with CLAW is probably among the goriest 
cases of a thick binding dealing with multiple environments around.

> Can we agree on having a choice at least?

Sure, you have that choice.  There are several good pre-processors for 
Ada.  Go, get one, use it.  Pretty soon you will join Randy and I on the 
other side of the fence.  Don't get me wrong, the GNAT pre-processor 
facilities are great, much better than cpp.  But when you really try to 
use it you end up in self protection migrating as much pre-processor 
stuff as possible into one unit.  Then once you start planning out the 
code you want for some change to that unit, then figuring out where to 
stick it in the middle of all the preprocessor directives, you will 
agree that multiple bodies are easier to maintain. ;-)

(Incidently, there is an intermediate position you go through, and which 
  works nicely for some units.  The bodies of subprograms in the unit 
each turns into a case statement on the processor or compiler.  But when 
I reach that point, I use Ada instead of the pre-processor for the case 
statements.)
-- 
                                           Robert I. Eachus

"The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, 
cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our 
perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty." -- 
George W. Bush