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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8dffd960b2d9594e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac Date: 1995/04/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100939421 references: <3kb9rs$622@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <3khii0$cgi@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Boy there is a lot of confusion on this thread. For example consider this excerpt: >> For simple applications, with perhaps a half dozen or so modules with a >> few thousand lines of code, maybe that's true. But for bigger programs, >> I want a MAKE facility and scripts. >> >Disagree again. An IDE done _correctly_ is better than a command line only But in fact if you read these in more detail, both agree that the ideal is to have a nicely integrated environment with both visual and command line capabilities. Does anyone really disagree with this? My original post which set off this discussion complained about the Mac because it had NO command line facility. But I certainly did not say i wanted ONLY a command line facility. I use OS/2 for all my work, and one of the nice things about this system is the integration of the command line capability and the visutla cpability, which good tools exploit in an appropraite manner.