Re: Language support for flexible handling of system-detected errors.

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

That's certainly an issue as well. Just the whole business of relying on C++
header files that work by lexical inclusion creates all kinds of ambiguities
and difficulties that make interpreting them within an IDE as having
specific meanings and intent a really difficult task.

I'd think it would be a lot easier to do this in Ada - especially with
something like ASIS working for you - because of the less ambiguous and more
consistent semantics of the package specification.

As for the comments? A lot of them have to do with trying to impose a very
specific structure on a program to utilize the GUI programming model that
MSVC++ defines. They're going "You have to write your program *this way* if
you want to integrate with the GUI builder and have all the code generation
we can do for you..." I'd suspect this might be easier to do in Ada, but you
might still have to come up with some kludges to get the source code to line
up with what the GUI builder is doing.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote in message
news:3CAC8552.5060107@home.com...
>
> Part of "that" problem is actually due to the underlying language
>
> begin supported. Ada is easily supported by an IDE because there
> are no _macros_ in the language to obscure what's behind them.
>
> Visual Studio has to lean on specially formatted (and ugly!) comments
> everywhere.  Add to that, the fact that MuckySoft has a fetish
> for C macros. This leaves you with a recipe for a "can't win"
> scenario in an IDE. But this is consistent with their "good enough"
> philosophy.
>
> I just don't agree that it is good enough.