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

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <warren@ve3wwg.tk>]

Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <warren@ve3wwg.tk> wrote in message
> news:QEcQb.20015$cQ6.817492@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 
>>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>>>>I'd like to be able to hand off a collection of source code and say
>>>
>>>If we could limit variations to compilation units, I think we could,
>>>then there might be a better way than preprocessing.
>>
>>As soon as you start splitting code into different parallel "files",
>>you are denormalizing and decentralizing your code. This is
>>maintenance hell.  If you find a bug in one of these "portability"
>>unique files, then you have to edit several files to effect the
>>same fix. It also much more difficult to view the impact to
>>other "platforms" for such a fix.
> 
> I have to agree with Dmitry. This is a configuration management problem, and
> an editor problem, not a language problem. There's no need to mess with the
> language here.

I would settle for a standard "precompiler tool", if one doesn't
want to tinker with the language. For me, this matter is all moot
anyway, because all that I am likely to use is gnatprep, lacking
any other standard tool.

However, having said that, there may be some advantages to integrating
conditional compilation into the language. One of the problems that
C/C++ has, is that you cannot do things like:

   #if sizeof(int) == 16
   ...
   #else
   ...
   #endif

This is just one example. Another might be to test the offset
of a structure member, and add padding where necessary.

The problem is that the preprocessor does not have the ability to
evaluate size expressions.

Ada projects may also have similar needs and more. Having
a conditional compilation integrated into the language might
provide some advanced portability features. Certainly
integration like this would be an improvement in capability
over other languages beginning with C ;-)

And what I find amusing is that except for a few that
appreciate this issue, we've heard of every ugly
work-around possible, rather than face the issue
square in the eye. This is just my opinion mind you,
and perhaps small things amuse me ;-)

It seems like a large number of people have this "Ada
doesn't do it this way" attitude (otherwise known as
"not invented here syndrome"). It kind of reminds me
of the differences between Linux developers vs the
*BSD ones. Both sides can learn from the other, but
one side tends to look down on the other, and thus
limits their thinking. (I won't say who ;-)

As Ada stands now, it only serves the less portable
embedded environment. If people truly do want to see
wide-spread adoption of Ada, you will need to
improve the portability to a level that competes
well with C/C++.

As for me, based upon what I have seen in this group,
I'll just go on using gnatprep like I always have. The
fact that ACT created this tool, and the fact that I
and others use it, demonstrates a need that is not yet
satisfied by the standard.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://ve3wwg.tk