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: 102b75,501ec19d1d81daee X-Google-Attributes: gid102b75,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,db9a11afb3da4240 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-04 00:01:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail From: Ingo Marks Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Language support for flexible handling of system-detected errors. Followup-To: comp.arch Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:58:28 +0200 Organization: T-Online Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1017907082 02 13158 9xI8Tm1bS2Atck 020404 07:58:02 X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com X-Sender: 340020534592-0001@t-dialin.net User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.arch:26387 comp.lang.ada:22084 Date: 2002-04-04T09:58:28+02:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > No need to get insulting. Just consider this point: MSVC++ has > considerably more features and integration than just about anything I've > seen that comes out of a box for Ada. While you can get many of the same > capabilities out of a polyglot of tools that you have to pull together > from a variety of sources, there isn't something of similar capability for > Ada. You may not like the way MSVC++ does a variety of things and you may > have preferences for other toolsets (of which I'm always happy to hear) > but I don't think that changes the fact that MSVC++ provides navigation, > GUI building, class libraries, debugging, building, etc., all together in > one convenient package and I don't see a similar shrink-wrap kit available > for Ada. If Ada got *at least* as far as MSVC++ it would have achieved > something pretty cool. The question is: Do you want to write comfortable software or do you want to write software comfortably? Of course, MSVC++ is a comfortable environment for writing C++ applications. But are the applications you write comfortable for your customer? I think it is better to write reliable software with Ada and "simple" tools like Xemacs editor and some Ada library than to use a pretty development environment which produces results of questionable quality. I have developed for many years in many programming languages, but Ada is the first language which helped me to a) reduce my programming time (about half compared to C++) and b) to produce really realiable code. I don't like to use a compiler which I don't know to be error free or not. A computer science professor told me, that there is _no_ 100% error free C++ compiler in the world! Besides: I use Xemacs with Ada mode. I have tried several Ada editors but nothing is more comfortable than Xemacs. Xemacs is a bit hard to learn but when you've got it you won't miss it. > Metrowerks and Code Warrior might make interesting models for deriving a > set of requirements for an Ada IDE. I'd have to look at them in more > detail to see what they do that would be A Good Thing. The idea should be > to identify a set of capabilities & features that folks tend to find > useful in other IDEs and adapt that to an Ada environment. It never hurts > to add new capabilities and features along the way so that an Ada IDE > would have *more* to offer than the other available tools. IMHO Anjuta is a good starting point for a very pretty Ada IDE. http://anjuta.sourceforge.net. SciTE (http://www.scintilla.org/) is interesting, too.