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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 102b75,501ec19d1d81daee X-Google-Attributes: gid102b75,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,db9a11afb3da4240 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-01 19:15:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!lon1-news.nildram.net!154.32.99.10.MISMATCH!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Language support for flexible handling of system-detected errors. Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:47:32 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1017679653 9267 136.170.200.133 (1 Apr 2002 16:47:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Apr 2002 16:47:33 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.arch:26284 comp.lang.ada:21971 Date: 2002-04-01T16:47:33+00:00 List-Id: I can sympathize with your desire to see some sort of common interface between development tools. Sometimes we have it (like ASIS, elf, and other sorts of "standards") and in other areas we don't. I think one of the reasons that many people like the "closed" IDEs with everything related to a particular language and compiler is just that it comes down to "One Stop Shopping". They don't want to spend their time creating the "perfect" development environment for their needs. They just want to grab a shrink-wrap package, install it and have (almost) everything they need to get their software product out the door quickly. If Micro$oft offers them a kit that does this at a reasonable price, they go for it. Why wouldn't they? If they could have a "better" environment by cobbling together a polyglot of software, this might be interesting, but not compelling. How does this get the job done faster/better/cheaper? Is more time spent cobbling the environment together than it saves in developing the real product? If a software product - or set of them - wants to be successful, it/they have to consider the business environment they're in and how best to work with that. You can ignore "business needs" only at your own risk. :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "hack" wrote in message news:a89vq3$haq$1@news.btv.ibm.com... > > My main point was *against* the closed nature of many IDEs, i.e. the view > that "integration" means to have in one place (and style) everything related > to a particular language or compiler -- as opposed to my view of "integration" > as to ability to communicate equally well, in a single familiar environment, > with many separate working environments (compilers, e-mail, runtimes etc.). >