Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[David John Toshack]

Does anybody know of any decent ADA compilers? I have GW AdaEd v1.5.1 and
I am sick of it! I am looking for something a lot more user friendly and a
lot faster. A drag and drop application would be GREAT if anybody knows of
^^^
an ada compiler which fits this description, please let me know.
					Thanks in advance...David.

  /////\\\  |David Toshack, Comp. Sci.,-|   ///@ @ \\\\ |-|\--/\--/
 ////@  @\\ |RMIT, Melbourne, Australia.|-oOOO-(_)-OOOo-| | \/  \/
 |[/   U  ] |   E-Mail: s9406161@arcadia.cs.rmit.edu.au   | /\  /\
 ||\  \_//^ |___________________________|----o-\_/-o------|/--\/--\

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Vladimir Vukicevic]

In article <3kb9rs$622@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> s9406161@arcadia.cs.rmit.edu.au (David John Toshack) writes:

> Does anybody know of any decent Ada compilers? I have GW AdaEd v1.5.1 and
> I am sick of it! I am looking for something a lot more user friendly and a
> lot faster. A drag and drop application would be GREAT if anybody knows of
> ^^^
> an ada compiler which fits this description, please let me know.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a drag-and-drop compiler. Just
drag source to it and it will compile the code? What about the linker?
Drag and drop linker, too? Are you going to select all the (possibly
hundreds) of .o files and drop them on an app?

The are currently no freely available Ada copilers for the Macintosh
platform, save for Ada/Ed. Many people are talking about porting GNAT..
I hope this port becomes a reality soon.

	- Vladimir

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Robert Dewar]

The drag-and-drop paradigm for a compiler sounds nice (to compile just
drop the source on the compiler), but in practice I think it would be
a mmajor pain in the neck. This kind of mousing is nice for lots of things,
but command line interfaces are ultimately much more appropriate for
software development involving compilation and linking. That's why a decent
compiler on the Mac is more work than it might be, you have to create your
own command line interface of some kind. Yes, you could use MPW, but this
is not available to most MAC users.

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Bob Collins]

In article <3khii0$cgi@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>The drag-and-drop paradigm for a compiler sounds nice (to compile just
>drop the source on the compiler), but in practice I think it would be
>a mmajor pain in the neck. This kind of mousing is nice for lots of things,
>but command line interfaces are ultimately much more appropriate for
>software development involving compilation and linking. That's why a decent
>compiler on the Mac is more work than it might be, you have to create your
>own command line interface of some kind. Yes, you could use MPW, but this
>is not available to most MAC users.

MPW is being phased out by Apple. The best compilers in the Mac market
(IMO), produced by MetroWerks, allow one to drag and drop text files
onto the project window to add files to a project. Dragging and
dropping individual files onto a compiler is a convenient way to open
the compiler for a file the compiler does not own, but is not used
to actually compile a file. For that, one usually needs a project file
(with its associated window) first. One can functionally do as much
with a non-CLI compiler/editor/linker/debugger on a Mac as with MPW
(at least for projects smaller than 1000 or so files). I guess, to
use one of RD's favorite terms correctly, the CLI vs non-CLI issue
remains moot.

(BTW, MetroWerks sells a CD with integrated development environment
compilers for Pascal, C, and C++; with code generators for
Mac Motorola 680x0, Mac Power PC, and Windows Intel 80x86/Pentium;
running fat on both 680x0 and Power PC for an academic price of $99.
This entitles one to three CDs in one year. This is the kind of
competition Ada faces in the real world, if one can label the
academic world real. I don't work for them, so no email addresses
or phone numbers.)

Bob Collins, collins@cs.wm.edu

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Gary McKee]

In Article <1995Mar20.152421.24324@cs.wm.edu>, collins@cs.wm.edu (Bob
Collins) wrote:
>...
>MPW is being phased out by Apple. The best compilers in the Mac market
>(IMO), produced by MetroWerks, allow one to drag and drop text files
>onto the project window to add files to a project. Dragging and

Actually, MPW PRO is alive and well and both advertised and available from
APDA. They explicitly denied a phase out plan.

>(at least for projects smaller than 1000 or so files). I guess, to
>use one of RD's favorite terms correctly, the CLI vs non-CLI issue
>remains moot.

This, I agree with. A CLI is strictly a user-interface issue and the Mac can
support both fancy and simple ones equally well. The hard part is for the
user to define what style of CLI that they desire.

>
>(BTW, MetroWerks sells a CD with integrated development environment
>compilers for Pascal, C, and C++; with code generators for
>Mac Motorola 680x0, Mac Power PC, and Windows Intel 80x86/Pentium;
>running fat on both 680x0 and Power PC for an academic price of $99.
>This entitles one to three CDs in one year. This is the kind of
>competition Ada faces in the real world, if one can label the
>academic world real. I don't work for them, so no email addresses
>or phone numbers.)

The $99 price for MetroWerks CodeWarrior is for 'anyone', not just academics
but it only generates 680x0 code (no Power PC code). 
It is called "MetroWerks Bronze".




Gary McKee
--------------------------------------------------------------------
McKee Consulting                        (303) 795-7287
P. O. Box 3009                          gmckee@cloudnine.com
Littleton, CO 80161-3009                
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Bob Collins]

In article <gmckee.1146141718A@news-2.csn.net>
gmckee@cloudnine.com (Gary McKee) writes:
>In Article <1995Mar20.152421.24324@cs.wm.edu>, collins@cs.wm.edu (Bob
>Collins) wrote:
>>(BTW, MetroWerks sells a CD with integrated development environment
>>compilers for Pascal, C, and C++; with code generators for
>>Mac Motorola 680x0, Mac Power PC, and Windows Intel 80x86/Pentium;
>>running fat on both 680x0 and Power PC for an academic price of $99.
>>This entitles one to three CDs in one year. This is the kind of
>>competition Ada faces in the real world, if one can label the
>>academic world real. I don't work for them, so no email addresses
>>or phone numbers.)
>
>The $99 price for MetroWerks CodeWarrior is for 'anyone', not just academics
>but it only generates 680x0 code (no Power PC code). 
>It is called "MetroWerks Bronze".

Nope. The $99 price is for academic Platinum, and is in effect for the
next version. Currently, only Intel is not supported. Otherwise, the
description I gave is accurate. There also is a cheap Bronze for
everyone as pointed out, but that is not what I was talking about.

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Larry Kilgallen, LJK Software]

In article <1995Mar20.152421.24324@cs.wm.edu>, collins@cs.wm.edu (Bob Collins) writes:

> (BTW, MetroWerks sells a CD with integrated development environment
> compilers for Pascal, C, and C++; with code generators for
> Mac Motorola 680x0, Mac Power PC, and Windows Intel 80x86/Pentium;
> running fat on both 680x0 and Power PC for an academic price of $99.
> This entitles one to three CDs in one year. This is the kind of
> competition Ada faces in the real world, if one can label the
> academic world real. I don't work for them, so no email addresses
> or phone numbers.)

I got the impression that Symantec, an older competitor to Metrowerks,
was trying to team with Language Systems to let the Language Systems
Pascal compiler be integrated into the new Symantec Rainbow IDE.

If Rainbow (a code name -- ships in the latest Symantec C) is receptive
to additional compilers (as distinguished from being receptive only to
the addition of Pascal), that might be a nice resting place for an Ada
compiler.  I don't know if GNAT would be a possibility, since the deal
with Language Systems would be a commercial one.

At the present time, I doubt that MetroWerks would be interested in Ada,
since they have absolutely no interest in supporting Standard Pascal --
the owner indicated at San Francisco MacWorld that their only reason for
adding object Pascal (Macintosh style) features in an upcoming release
is due to the existing installed base using that dialect.

But for all those who think making Ada compilers available will make Ada
popular, be forewarned that restricting programmers to a command language
interface is a good way to shut out all but the Ada die-hards.

Most Macintosh programmers will ask "Why should I switch to your language
if it looks like Unix."  Apple must continue supporting MPW for their
installed base, but Think Pascal led the way and now there are two
vigorous vendors trying to outdo each other's C/C++ IDE.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[David Weller]

In article <1995Mar21.095028.9432@eisner>,
Larry Kilgallen, LJK Software <kilgallen@eisner.decus.org> wrote:
>At the present time, I doubt that MetroWerks would be interested in Ada,
>since they have absolutely no interest in supporting Standard Pascal --
>the owner indicated at San Francisco MacWorld that their only reason for
>adding object Pascal (Macintosh style) features in an upcoming release
>is due to the existing installed base using that dialect.
>

That's quite possible, but I also know that MetroWerks was being
courted heavily to do an Ada95 implementation several months ago.  I
have the impression that they, like most other compiler companies,
would support the language if they felt the market was there.  Kind
of a chicken vs. egg problem :-/


-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
		if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada   :-)

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Vladimir Vukicevic]

In article <3kn2oo$54o@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:

> 
> That's quite possible, but I also know that MetroWerks was being
> courted heavily to do an Ada95 implementation several months ago.  I
> have the impression that they, like most other compiler companies,
> would support the language if they felt the market was there.  Kind
> of a chicken vs. egg problem :-/
> 

Hmmmm. I wonder if MetroWerks would release information on how to interface
with their code generators? It might be possible to write a new version
of gigi to translate gnat trees to metrowerks trees (or the equivelent)...
it doesn't look like gnat is too dependant on the gcc source code, except
for a handful of system-specific .c files.

	- Vladimir

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Michael Feldman]

In article <VLADIMIR.95Mar21195042@speedy.intrepid.com>,
Vladimir Vukicevic <vladimir@speedy.intrepid.com> wrote:

>Hmmmm. I wonder if MetroWerks would release information on how to interface
>with their code generators? It might be possible to write a new version
>of gigi to translate gnat trees to metrowerks trees (or the equivelent)...
>it doesn't look like gnat is too dependant on the gcc source code, except
>for a handful of system-specific .c files.

You might want to contact MetroWerks on this. My impression is that they
might well be interested in seeing other languages interfaced to
CodeWarrior. Might be tricky to keep it all GPL-legal, but maybe
with some cleverness... Dunno... late at night... not thinking clearly.

Mike Feldman

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Jon Spear]

In article <3kobh7$t3i@felix.seas.gwu.edu>,
Michael Feldman <mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu> wrote:
>You might want to contact MetroWerks on this. My impression is that they
>might well be interested in seeing other languages interfaced to
>CodeWarrior. Might be tricky to keep it all GPL-legal, but maybe
>with some cleverness... Dunno... late at night... not thinking clearly.

Is worth a try.  I just emailed my vote to:

    prez@metrowerks.com

BTW, they have a WWW page at:

    http://www.iquest.com/~fairgate/cw/cw.html

-Jon
--
|Jon Spear (spear@cs.nps.navy.mil)|Ada95: The World's First International-  |
|Comp Sci Dept, Code CS/Sj, x2830 |Standard OOPL. http://lglwww.epfl.ch/Ada/|

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Robert Dewar]

At one point Metroworks seemed quite interested in doing something with
Ada, and indeed was expected to bid on the educational Ada contract, but
then they suddenly stopped talking to us and disappeared from sight!

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Michael Feldman]

In article <3ksqot$kbg@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>At one point Metroworks seemed quite interested in doing something with
>Ada, and indeed was expected to bid on the educational Ada contract, but
>then they suddenly stopped talking to us and disappeared from sight!
>

...and emerged later from their skunk works to deliver CodeWarrior.
That's a hell of a system, pretty much _the_ compiler system for
PowerMacs right now. Even Apple is rumored to be using it.

MetroWerks clearly had a full plate, among other reasons why they
lost interest in Ada. 

Mike Feldman

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Larry Kilgallen, LJK Software]

Someone from Symantec just made a posting on comp.sys.mac.<I forget>
pushing the fact that they had designed Rainbow to allow hosting other
compilers.

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Larry Kilgallen, LJK Software]

In article <1995Mar25.162917.9483@eisner>, kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen, LJK Software) writes:
> Someone from Symantec just made a posting on comp.sys.mac.<I forget>
> pushing the fact that they had designed Rainbow to allow hosting other
> compilers.

And just now, a public announcement accepting such compilers:
> 
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer.tools
> Subject: Symantec Compiler Writer's toolkit available
> Message-ID: <johnm-2303951847340001@155.64.60.33>
> From: johnm@bedford.symantec.com (John T. Micco)
> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 18:47:34 -0500
> Organization: Symantec
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 155.64.60.33
> Lines: 14
> 
> Announcing Symantec Compiler Developer's Toolkit.
> 
>    This toolkit is intended to provide relatively complete documentation on
> how to write compilers for the Symantec Project Manager 8.0.  It includes
> over 100 pages of written documentation and sourcecode with projects and
> makefiles for a do-nothing compiler.
> 
> Anyone interested in receiving this toolkit can do so via anonymous FTP at
> ftp://ftp.bedford.symantec.com.
> 
> Sincerely,
> The Symantec Macintosh Development Tools Group

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Fabrizio Oddone]

In article <3l017d$s0q@felix.seas.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
Feldman) wrote:

> In article <3ksqot$kbg@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu>
wrote:
> >At one point Metroworks seemed quite interested in doing something with
> >Ada, and indeed was expected to bid on the educational Ada contract, but
> >then they suddenly stopped talking to us and disappeared from sight!
> >
> 
> ...and emerged later from their skunk works to deliver CodeWarrior.
> That's a hell of a system, pretty much _the_ compiler system for
> PowerMacs right now. Even Apple is rumored to be using it.

Apple is definitely using CodeWarrior
(they have a site registration, according to MW...)

-- 
 Fabrizio Oddone <gspnx@di.unito.it>
http://www.di.unito.it/pub/WWW/www_student/apple/FabrizioOddone/

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Lars Farm]

In article <VLADIMIR.95Mar21195042@speedy.intrepid.com>,
vladimir@speedy.intrepid.com (Vladimir Vukicevic) wrote:

> Hmmmm. I wonder if MetroWerks would release information on how to interface
> with their code generators? It might be possible to write a new version
> of gigi to translate gnat trees to metrowerks trees (or the equivelent)...
> it doesn't look like gnat is too dependant on the gcc source code, except
> for a handful of system-specific .c files.
> 
>         - Vladimir

I don't know about Metrowerks, but Symantec has had such a public
interface for quite a while. A friend put a Prolog compiler into their
TPM. Attached below is an announcement that might be of interest. Posted
at comp.sys.mac.programmer by johnm@bedford.symantec.com (John T. Micco)

  Lars

  -------

From: johnm@bedford.symantec.com (John T. Micco)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer.misc
Subject: Symantec Compiler Developer Toolkit available
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 18:46:55 -0500
Organization: Symantec
Message-ID: <johnm-2303951846550001@155.64.60.33>

Announcing Symantec Compiler Developer's Toolkit.

   This toolkit is intended to provide relatively complete documentation on
how to write compilers for the Symantec Project Manager 8.0.  It includes
over 100 pages of written documentation and sourcecode with projects and
makefiles for a do-nothing compiler.

   Anyone interested in receiving this toolkit can do so via anonymous FTP at

ftp://ftp.bedford.symantec.com.

Sincerely,
The Symantec Macintosh Development Tools Group

-- 
Lars.Farm@nts.mh.se

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Robert Dewar]

One thing to realize about the possibility of interfacing GNAT to different
front ends is that the tree format is very fluid in GNAT, and we are
often making significant changes. Anyone trying to track this independently
would have, let us say, an "interesting" time.

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Kevin F. Quinn]

In article <3khii0$cgi@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>,
          dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:

> The drag-and-drop paradigm for a compiler sounds nice (to compile just
> drop the source on the compiler), but in practice I think it would be
> a mmajor pain in the neck.

The system I have uses drag-and-drop to build make files.  Works quite
well.  Select a pile of source files, drag them to the the application
window, and click on "Make".  The application generates a normal-ish
looking make file so hand modifications can be achieved if necessary
(which is unusual).  Unfortunately it's for an ANSI C and Pascal
development system, not Ada :(

--
Kevin F. Quinn           * "That's not what you said when you sent him your
kevq@banana.demon.co.uk  * Navel."   "Novel, Baldrick, not navel."
kevq@cix.compulink.co.uk * "Well it sounds like a case of soggy grapefruits
Compu$erve: 100025,1525  * to me..."                        BlackAdder III
... These aren't my boxers -- they bend !

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Vladimir Vukicevic]

In article <3khii0$cgi@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert
Dewar) writes:

>  The drag-and-drop paradigm for a compiler sounds nice (to compile
> just drop the source on the compiler), but in practice I think it
> would be a mmajor pain in the neck. This kind of mousing is nice for
> lots of things, but command line interfaces are ultimately much more
> appropriate for software development involving compilation and
> linking. That's why a decent compiler on the Mac is more work than
> it might be, you have to create your own command line interface of
> some kind. Yes, you could use MPW, but this is not available to most
> MAC users.

Actually, you could open up a terminal window using the communications
toolbox's terminal tools with your own display/send functions. Apple
actually supports opening up terminal windows this way; there's an
article in 'develop' issue 9 showing how to open up an output debug
window using terminal tools. It only supports output, but it could
easily be extended to support input as well. If this were done, you
would also get (with the right terminal tool) vt102 emulation,
allowing you to easily port nvi or other tty-oriented tools.

I tried to write a simple shell using this method a while ago, but
I couldn't figure out a way to run other programs. Perhaps gcc/cc1/etc.
could be modified to wait for an AppleEvent on startup, or even as
arguments to the OAPP (Open Application) event, which would contain
a string which would be the command-line arguments. These could then
run as faceless applications with no mac interface, and they could pass
error and other output back to the shell via AppleEvents. This would
require some (simple, I think) modifications to gcc/cc1/gnat1, etc. to
work in this way.

The problem that arises here is that, if this were done, the produced
ada apps might need a tty to display/get data. A mac-tty-specific version
of the gnarl might be needed to implement this. An application which
presents a Mac interface would not need to be linked against this version.
(This is assuming that you have a library that implemements versions
of unix stdio calls, like all of the currently available mac compilers do..
however, one might need to be written and placed under the GPL.)

	- Vladimir

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Matthew C. Sargent]

In article <3khii0$cgi@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:

> The drag-and-drop paradigm for a compiler sounds nice (to compile just
> drop the source on the compiler), but in practice I think it would be
> a mmajor pain in the neck. This kind of mousing is nice for lots of things,
> but command line interfaces are ultimately much more appropriate for
> software development involving compilation and linking. 

I will have to speak up on that one. Command line interfaces are not
better for compiling and linking (and debugging). Look at all the IDEs out
there for C/C++/Pascal and _Ada_ too! They really are a pleasure to use
and make managing the closure of your program much easier.

>That's why a decent
> compiler on the Mac is more work than it might be, you have to create your
> own command line interface of some kind. Yes, you could use MPW, but this
> is not available to most MAC users.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                 |                                 |
|Matthew C. Sargent               |             |                   |
|Rational Software Corporation    |          __/ \__                |
|sarge@Rational.com               |   -=======(_*_)=======-         |
|804-491-0372                     |         |       |               |
|804-425-5859 Fax                 |         O       O               |
|                                 |                                 |
|AMA #457887                      | SuperSportster40/SuperTiger40   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
<Place standard disclaimer here>

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Vladimir Vukicevic]

In article <sarge-2003952344040001@192.229.32.35> sarge@Rational.Com
(Matthew C. Sargent) writes:

> I will have to speak up on that one. Command line interfaces are not
> better for compiling and linking (and debugging). Look at all the
> IDEs out there for C/C++/Pascal and _Ada_ too! They really are a
> pleasure to use and make managing the closure of your program much
> easier.

All of these (with the notable exception of some Mac compilers
[MetroWerks and Symantec]) are simply fancy interfaces on top of
command line compiling/code-generation tools. All of Sun's stuff
is. SGI's WorkShop is. OS/2's C/Set++ tools are. Granted, all of these
provide graphical class browsers and the like, but the compilation
tools are command-line-level.

I agree that there should be some sort of a graphical user interface.
However, it should only be a driver to generate the right parameters
for the compiler, or to ensure correct compilation order, etc. Often,
using non-graphical interfaces is more efficient than using fancy
graphical tools for compilation. To compile a simple program, it's
much easier to type "gcc -o foo foo.c" than to have to have to create
a project file, add foo.c to that project, add all the necessary
libraries, and then select 'make' from some menu option. You are often
distracted by the multitude of options your GUI provides that you may
forget your original task, which was to get a source file compiled.

This is (IMHO) one major shortcoming of the MacOS interface. If you
want to do something fast, there's no way to do it. If you want to get
into the "Foo:Blah:Bar:Quux:Fap:Blat" folder, you have to click-click-
click-click through all those folders, instead of simply typing "cd
Foo:Blah:...".

	- Vladimir

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Valentin Richter]

In article <VLADIMIR.95Mar21194513@speedy.intrepid.com>,
vladimir@speedy.intrepid.com (Vladimir Vukicevic) wrote:

> This is (IMHO) one major shortcoming of the MacOS interface. If you
> want to do something fast, there's no way to do it. If you want to get
> into the "Foo:Blah:Bar:Quux:Fap:Blat" folder, you have to click-click-
> click-click through all those folders, instead of simply typing "cd
> Foo:Blah:...".

Point granted. But to be fair one has to take into account all the time
wasted when he or she typed something wrong -- and not only successful
command line commands. Then on average I doubt that a command line
interface is really faster.

Besides I strongly side with the fundamental design principle of a GUI: If
some object is already know to the system then you don't have to type in
its path and name to specify it for some action, but you only need to
point at it. To effectively support this principle we need some standard 
GUI interface elements to quickly locate a needle (objects) in a haystack.
These concepts will also overcome the natural limit of a command line
being that one has to know the exact name of every object he wants to use.

-----
Valentin Richter
richter@informatik.uni-muenchen.de

A statistician is someone who drowns in a creek whose average
depth is three feet.   anon (at least to me)

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Robert Dewar]

"Besides I strongly side with the fundamental design principle of a GUI: If
some object is already know to the system then you don't have to type in
its path and name to specify it for some action, but you only need to
point at it. To effectively support this principle we need some standard"

and pray how do you propose I point to a-ti[a-m]?io.adb which happened
to refer to about 20 files in a directory of may hundreds? Just to quote
from a command that happens to be sitting on my screen in another window.

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Bob Collins]

In article <VLADIMIR.95Mar21194513@speedy.intrepid.com>,
vladimir@speedy.intrepid.com (Vladimir Vukicevic) wrote:

> This is (IMHO) one major shortcoming of the MacOS interface. If you
> want to do something fast, there's no way to do it. If you want to get
> into the "Foo:Blah:Bar:Quux:Fap:Blat" folder, you have to click-click-
> click-click through all those folders, instead of simply typing "cd
> Foo:Blah:...".

The MacOS is a moving target. Currently, there are numerous utilities
available (from Apple and from third parties) to mitigate this
problem. Most involve hierarchical menus. For example, place an
alias of a directory or volume in a special menu. Then one can
travel five-deep through hierarchical menus to a destination
directory or file. No double-clicking. One clever paradigm involves
the iconic representations of directories (folders). Depress the
mouse button while the cursor is over a folder. After a short pause,
a menu pops up containing the contents of the folder. This pop-up
menu is also hierarchical and can be used for deeply nested items.

The advantages of these systems: increased manual dexterity
(learned in order to traverse hierarchical menus), saving of some
memory cells, and the use of longer directory names (no repetitive
typing). The disadvantage: we spend Ada time reading about interfaces.

Bob Collins, collins@cs.wm.edu

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Robert Dewar]

Matthew Sargent says:

"I will have to speak up on that one. Command line interfaces are not
better for compiling and linking (and debugging). Look at all the IDEs out
there for C/C++/Pascal and _Ada_ too! They really are a pleasure to use
and make managing the closure of your program much easier."

(am I msiremembering or is this a duplicated message, if so, then this
reply is probably duplicated too, sorry about that!)

Any IDE that does not provide the ability of writing, storing and executing
command sequences is totally useless as far as I am concerned. Sure a visual
interface can help with many things. As many operating systems show (e.g.
OS/2) it is perfectly possible to integrate a command line interface and
a visual interface and use the best of either world for the task at hand.
I used a MAC extensively for a while, and eventually found that the complete
lack of  command line support was unacceptable. For example, compiling a
program from a directory selecting files on the basis of their names is
typically much more easily done using a command line interface. Sure I
perfectly well understand that any particular operation can be done using
some neat visual interface, and a good IDE has built in visual interfaces
for common operations, but you can't achieve the generality of a command
line interface that way. Complex tasks inevitably involve some programming,
and you need a programming language underlying the interface structure to
achieve this comfortably.

Is it really true that the Rational IDE has no command line interface at
all, I have not looked at it. If the answer is that it doesn't, then I
must say I am not interested in looking at it. But I would guess that in
fact I will find that it is one of these combined interfaces in which
visual and command structure are nicely integrated.

The MAC is wonderful for trivial tasks, but perfectly awful for anything
complex. For example, installing my fonts on a MAC (I have over 1000 fonts)
involves clicking on each one separately -- madness!

So I really think that a nice development environment on the MAC needs to
construct at least a minimal command interpretor of some kind. A purely
visual interface would be OK for simple student mucking, but not for any
real work.

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Larry Kilgallen, LJK Software]

In article <3kpahd$6t0@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> The MAC is wonderful for trivial tasks, but perfectly awful for anything
> complex. For example, installing my fonts on a MAC (I have over 1000 fonts)
> involves clicking on each one separately -- madness!

Typically one would "select all" and then drag them to the destination.
Whether particular utilities fail to support drag and drop is a measure
of implementation quality, but not of the overall User Interface Design
of the MacOS.

> So I really think that a nice development environment on the MAC needs to
> construct at least a minimal command interpretor of some kind. A purely
> visual interface would be OK for simple student mucking, but not for any
> real work.

By way of credentials, I have 16 years experience programming on VMS
(with RSX and TOPS-10 before that) so I am quite accustomed to using
command line interfaces.  I have spend 6 hours today so far in that
environment.

On the Macintosh, however, I find the Think Pascal IDE quite fine for
all my work.  The major problem is that the language behind it is quite
non-standard, and I presume any commercial Ada product would do much
better in that regard.

A poorly executed IDE is painful, but it _can_ be done right.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[David Weller]

In article <3kpahd$6t0@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Is it really true that the Rational IDE has no command line interface at
>all, I have not looked at it. If the answer is that it doesn't, then I
>must say I am not interested in looking at it. But I would guess that in
>fact I will find that it is one of these combined interfaces in which
>visual and command structure are nicely integrated.
>

I use Apex quite a bit, and all functionality that I've needed can be
accessed from the command line (CM, compile, link, etc.).  Apex is
politely behaved in this aspect :-)


-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
		if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada   :-)

Apex command-line (was Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac)

[Bob Kitzberger]

 In article <3kpahd$6t0@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Is it really true that the Rational IDE has no command line interface at
>all, I have not looked at it. If the answer is that it doesn't, then I
>must say I am not interested in looking at it. But I would guess that in
>fact I will find that it is one of these combined interfaces in which
>visual and command structure are nicely integrated.

"Is it really true"?  You must inform the person passing you this
information that there is a rather full command line interface for
compiler operations, CMVC operations, direectory viewer operations,
subsystem/view operations, etc.  The Apex layered products (testing
tools, target compilation, documentation automation, etc.) also have
similarly styled command-line interfaces (and APIs for access to
intermediate representations).  We strive to have every GUI operation
accessible via the command-line, and vice-versa (of course, some
traversal operations are an exception).

[apex tip #47: type "visit_ada foobar" to have the compiler ferret
out ada unit foobar in the current configuration, and bring up an editor
on it.  foobar.blat works fine, as does foobar'spec and foobar'body]

[FWIW, I find myself using the Apex editor for all Ada operations
(though I am fond of emacs).  I use emacs for general text editing,
outlining, etc.  I use the GUI more and more often to handle CMVC
operations, traversal, etc.  When a command is complex, I rely on the
GUI to display available options in a friendly manner.  The more
complete the GUI, the less I use the command-line.]

--
Bob Kitzberger	        +1 (916) 274-3075	        rlk@rational.com
Rational Software Corp., 10565 Brunswick Rd. #11, Grass Valley, CA 95945

Re: Apex command-line (was Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac)

[Robert Dewar]

"you must inform the person passing you information [that Rational has a
 complete command line interface]"

I assume they know, I think it was someone from rational! The background
here was that I was arguing that a command line capability was essential
for convenient use of a compiler. Someone said, "no -- that's not true,
look at the IDE's from Rational etc." In fact it appears that the design
of APEX confirms rather than questions my original point!

Now the question is: does anyone have a compiler that has no command line
interface AT ALL tha they consider convenient to use ...

Re: Apex command-line (was Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac)

[Charles H. Sampson]

In article <3l6f3k$2qr@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>"you must inform the person passing you information [that Rational has a
> complete command line interface]"
>
>I assume they know, I think it was someone from rational! The background
>here was that I was arguing that a command line capability was essential
>for convenient use of a compiler. Someone said, "no -- that's not true,
>look at the IDE's from Rational etc." In fact it appears that the design
>of APEX confirms rather than questions my original point!
>
>Now the question is: does anyone have a compiler that has no command line
>interface AT ALL tha they consider convenient to use ...

     I don't know about a _compiler_ with no command line interface or
"convenient to use", but Symantec's old Object Pascal integrated environ-
ment for the Mac had no command line interface.  You entered the environ-
ment in either of the two standard Mac ways and once there you manoeuvred
around within your "project" using the usual Mac menu items and dialogs.
I was quite satisfied with it, except for the problems inherent in the
language.

				Charlie

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Arthur Evans Jr]

In article <sarge-2003952344040001@192.229.32.35>, sarge@Rational.Com
(Matthew C. Sargent) wrote:

> I will have to speak up on that one. Command line interfaces are not
> better for compiling and linking (and debugging). Look at all the IDEs out
> there for C/C++/Pascal and _Ada_ too! They really are a pleasure to use
> and make managing the closure of your program much easier.

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.

For example, Think C on the Mac has a fairly smooth build process, but
it works only if all steps in the build are C compiles.  If the build
includes tools that create source code (such as a parser generator),
Think C can't help.  I want make for such builds.

Art Evans

Arthur Evans Jr, PhD        Phone: 412-963-0839
Ada Consulting              FAX:   412-963-0927
461 Fairview Road
Pittsburgh PA  15238-1933
evans@evans.pgh.pa.us

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Matthew C. Sargent]

In article <evans-230395090943@evans.pgh.pa.us>, evans@evans.pgh.pa.us
(Arthur Evans Jr) wrote:

> In article <sarge-2003952344040001@192.229.32.35>, sarge@Rational.Com
> (Matthew C. Sargent) wrote:
> 
> > I will have to speak up on that one. Command line interfaces are not
> > better for compiling and linking (and debugging). Look at all the IDEs out
> > there for C/C++/Pascal and _Ada_ too! They really are a pleasure to use
> > and make managing the closure of your program much easier.
> 
> 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
environment. But, we really need to take a closer look as to what I am
saying here. I am not saying that a graphical interface is _always_
superior. What I am saying is that a development environment that puts the
tools for developing and maintaining a software system in the developers
hands is better that the traditional command line interface (compile,
edit, debug, repeat). When I say IDE, I mean a truly integrated
environment where CM, traversal, closure and compile states are all at the
developers fingertips. An environment where the QA and Test people can
mesh into the system with out grinding the development effort to a halt.
Lets face it people, there is alot of software out there that needs to be
written. If we cannot improve efficiency, robustness and turn-around time
on developing software systems we will be in deep kimshee. We have to push
the edge of the productivity envelope and to do that we will have to
discard some of our old methods in favor of superior ones, and if the
tools to support these new methods do not exist then we need to kick and
scream until they do. 

BTW, - to Robert Dewar, at no point did I say that Apex does not have a
command line interface, I just stated that I think that the traditional
command-line only interfaces are not better than an integrated
Environment.   

> For example, Think C on the Mac has a fairly smooth build process, but
> it works only if all steps in the build are C compiles.  If the build
> includes tools that create source code (such as a parser generator),
> Think C can't help.  I want make for such builds.

That is a failing of that IDE, not all of them.

> 
> Art Evans
> 
> Arthur Evans Jr, PhD        Phone: 412-963-0839
> Ada Consulting              FAX:   412-963-0927
> 461 Fairview Road
> Pittsburgh PA  15238-1933
> evans@evans.pgh.pa.us

To: dewar@GNAT.CS.NYU.EDU (Robert Dewar)
From: sarge@rational.com (Matthew C. Sargent)
Subject: Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac
Cc: 
Bcc: 
X-Attachments: 

>any IDE that has no command line interface is in my opinion a piece of junk
>that is totally unusable. I have to be able to have command scripts that
>do various special things, like compile selected units with special options.
>Sure, you don't want ONLY a command line interface, but a complete lack of
>one is crippling.

Agreed!

TTFN

Matt

---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                 |                                 |
|Matthew C. Sargent               |             |                   |
|Rational Software Corporation    |          __/ \__                |
|sarge@Rational.com               |   -=======(_*_)=======-         |
|804-491-0372                     |         |       |               |
|804-425-5859 Fax                 |         O       O               |
|                                 |                                 |
|AMA #457887                      | SuperSportster40/SuperTiger40   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
<Place standard disclaimer here>

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Robert Dewar]

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.

Re: Decent ADA compiler on a Mac

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <dewar.797191164@gnat>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> 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.

In principle allowing a command line interface should not cause pain.

In practice, however, cases where a command line interface is provided
one finds the developers of the tool frequently using it as an excuse
for skimping on the IDE.  "Oh, you want to refer to a file elsewhere
on your system?  Either navigate with standard file selection boxes,
or enter a full path specification.  That's why we have a command line
interface."

Full path specifications are _incredibly_ foreign to a Macintosh
user, and navigating with file selection boxes is the pits.  Find File
works well enough, but really an equivalent should be built into the
IDE to make things smooth.  (My understanding is that Find File was
a shareware buyout anyway.)

In summary, I guess I would be willing to allow a command line interface,
providing the IDE developers were forbidden to use it for their own work.
That might provide the necessary pressure to ensure the IDE is complete.

Some of us have so much experience with command-line operating systems
(myself included) that we lose our grasp of what might be.