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: 2004-01-26 14:26:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!207.35.177.252!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) 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: <49cbf610.0401170627.79c3dfe5@posting.google.com> <400A9B48.3060100@noplace.com> <400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com> <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com> <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> <400E72F9.8060501@noplace.com> <100upo7ln5e3k59@corp.supernews.com> <400FC8E8.2040100@noplace.com> <_JSdna166JuxFo3dRVn-hg@comcast.com> <10138603kq87jb4@corp.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: <10138603kq87jb4@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:11:47 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1075155057 198.96.223.163 (Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:10:57 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:10:57 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4842 Date: 2004-01-26T17:11:47-05:00 List-Id: Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote in message > news:PMcQb.20017$cQ6.818801@news20.bellglobal.com... > >>How do you solve the issues involved with different curses >>libraries? >> >> - UNIX/*BSD curses library? >> - GNU/Linux curses library? >> - PDcurses? > > You use a thick curses binding, of course. Of course, and just what do you think the binding has to worry about? ;-) > And if the bodies need to be > different, then there are different bodies. So what? The "so what" is that 90% of the code will be in common. So why would I duplicate 90% to manage the 10% in 3+ cases? Centralized maintenance is what I am after. As soon as you decentralize it, someone is going to forget, bungle or neglect to update the fix in one of the other n bodies. This does not a good solution make. > There are a number of parts of Claw that have different bodies (and in a few > cases, specs of private packages) for different compilers. It would be nice > if there was an automated way to keep the common parts of those in sync, but > that's a tools issue, not a language issue. That is just narrow thinking. Only you are saying it "must be tools". I am suggesting that perhaps another more natural solution is possible. > Similarly, the bodies for Claw-less sockets will be completely different > between the Windows version and the GNAT sockets version (and I think, the > Linux version, if we ever do that). (This is closer to your situation.) > There isn't much point in trying to share the code; far too little can be > shared. Conditional compilation only makes sense when you can share large > parts of the code -- but in those cases, careful use of subunits can again > put the differences all into a single body that might as well be handled > separately. > > Randy. 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. Can we agree on having a choice at least? -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://ve3wwg.tk