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: 103376,8dffd960b2d9594e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-21 19:45:13 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!stern.fokus.gmd.de!ceres.fokus.gmd.de!zib-berlin.de!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.umass.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!fdn.fr!uunet!in1.uu.net!intrepid.intrepid.com!usenet From: vladimir@speedy.intrepid.com (Vladimir Vukicevic) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac Date: 22 Mar 1995 03:45:13 GMT Organization: Intrepid Technology, Inc. Message-ID: References: <3kb9rs$622@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <3khii0$cgi@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: speedy.intrepid.com In-reply-to: sarge@Rational.Com's message of 21 Mar 1995 04:41:21 GMT Date: 1995-03-22T03:45:13+00:00 List-Id: In article sarge@Rational.Com (Matthew C. Sargent) writes: > I will have to speak up on that one. Command line interfaces are not > better for compiling and linking (and debugging). Look at all the > IDEs out there for C/C++/Pascal and _Ada_ too! They really are a > pleasure to use and make managing the closure of your program much > easier. All of these (with the notable exception of some Mac compilers [MetroWerks and Symantec]) are simply fancy interfaces on top of command line compiling/code-generation tools. All of Sun's stuff is. SGI's WorkShop is. OS/2's C/Set++ tools are. Granted, all of these provide graphical class browsers and the like, but the compilation tools are command-line-level. I agree that there should be some sort of a graphical user interface. However, it should only be a driver to generate the right parameters for the compiler, or to ensure correct compilation order, etc. Often, using non-graphical interfaces is more efficient than using fancy graphical tools for compilation. To compile a simple program, it's much easier to type "gcc -o foo foo.c" than to have to have to create a project file, add foo.c to that project, add all the necessary libraries, and then select 'make' from some menu option. You are often distracted by the multitude of options your GUI provides that you may forget your original task, which was to get a source file compiled. This is (IMHO) one major shortcoming of the MacOS interface. If you want to do something fast, there's no way to do it. If you want to get into the "Foo:Blah:Bar:Quux:Fap:Blat" folder, you have to click-click- click-click through all those folders, instead of simply typing "cd Foo:Blah:...". - Vladimir