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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.107.152.83 with SMTP id a80mr1173773ioe.3.1472852022778; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 14:33:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.6.44 with SMTP id 41mr2319262otn.10.1472852022753; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 14:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!i184no726628itf.0!news-out.google.com!b4ni7915iti.0!nntp.google.com!i184no726626itf.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:33:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=213.108.152.51; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.108.152.51 References: <24d4ffc3-3915-4102-96ae-68d11d881443@googlegroups.com> <2efe4d01-4cd4-4aea-bc54-98ea5f26ec8a@googlegroups.com> <2cf07aa6-9cbb-44bc-8042-601c57c85457@googlegroups.com> <328fa4a3-6215-4101-835a-7eaf7ed72a8c@googlegroups.com> <1d62cc93-324a-4c87-b9d3-67c24cb54c5f@googlegroups.com> <114c0223-e914-4a5c-b533-d1b924895181@googlegroups.com> <9ee99ad0-2fc5-47d3-bd2e-6f418f23a46a@googlegroups.com> <91322cd6-710a-424c-851e-9b5eb013e8a1@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Inspirels Ada on cortex tutorial linker issue From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 21:33:42 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:31693 Date: 2016-09-02T14:33:42-07:00 List-Id: > From a practical point of view, configuring a piece of > stereotypical C code means autoc***. Nonsense. I have written C and C++ code for multiple platforms and have nev= er used autoconf (if this is what you mean), not even once. In fact, I have= never understood, actually, why people are using it at all. So you are having problems with a tool that you associate with some program= ming language by means of stereotypical relations and you claim what exactl= y? That Ada is better, because it does not have any such tools that were cr= eated for C and which you do not need to use anyway? I like Ada, but I must= be missing some of the religious part of it. > They seem to > be using it Who is "they"? The C language standard does not mention them. Don't blame the language for something that exists outside of it. If autoto= ols do not work for you, it's not the fault of C and certainly it is not th= e Ada feature, either. > OTOH, if ever there have been standardized Ada build systems, Good point. Ada does not even have a consistent convention for naming its s= ource files. > Isn't this helpful when solving > certain problems of order, and of timing, when part A of a program > needs part B of the program to be in a ready state? > How would you do the same using C with Make, and formally so? When I need this kind of relationship, it is usually much more complex than= can be achieved with elaboration control. Talk about ensuring existence of= live database connection pool, for example. Or, on the other side of the a= pplication spectrum, about ensuring the proper clock configuration of your = microcontroller before you start using its peripherals. Ada's elaboration c= ontrol is neither required nor sufficient for managing relationships at the= level of complexity that is actually interesting in real-life applications= . --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com