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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Shark8 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0a1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware References: <87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com> <87tx06rve6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <79f3eff7-2b45-40ae-af94-fa9a17426d82@googlegroups.com> <87bnmd8mg2.fsf@ixod.org> <19cf9bc2-f8b9-4735-b427-7b070dda59da@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: abuse@teranews.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:52:30 UTC Organization: TeraNews.com Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:52:28 -0700 X-Received-Bytes: 4959 X-Received-Body-CRC: 2716492615 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24426 Date: 2015-01-06T13:52:28-07:00 List-Id: On 06-Jan-15 10:37, Björn Lundin wrote: > > On 2015-01-06 17:44, Shark8 wrote: > >> On 06-Jan-15 08:09, Björn Lundin wrote: > > I did reply to cla, not only to me. > > >>> The solution is to change path first, >>> and build AWS with Gnat-FSF. >>> GPS will pick up gnat tools first in path. >> >> That's a disgusting solution. >> Not because it works, but because there's any path-manipulation at all. > > So? Welcome to the real world. > PATH is an environment _variable_ > that is ok to add stuff to. I'm not saying it's not ok to add stuff to it; I'm saying making your system dependent upon it is, in a word, stupid. > Having at least 4 version of gnat installed, its dead easy to > switch between. > > >> The more I see dependencies like this the more convinced I am that the >> general-idea of the APSE (and SCID, in general) is the proper way to do >> things. > > bull Really? What has file-centric and "distributed among tools" setups brought about (a) in terms of configuration complexity? (b) In terms of organization complexity/dependence? And (c) in terms of consistency complexity? (A) How many different "small tools" have their own configuration which directly impacts another tool and that other tool doesn't know about the first? (B) Consider how many libraries need to be installed in a certain place to get them to work right/easily. (C) Have you /EVER/ linked to the wrong object because it became out of date? > -- This is to say, modern IDEs *don't go far enough*, let's get >> version-control and the build system in there too so there's no >> [variable] external dependencies like the PATH. > > Yes, let us remove the freedom to simple config changes, > and put stuff like that in some hidden config file, > so complex that you need a special tool to change it. > And rip out any transparency, so you can get rid of files > and put them in a database. At what cost? If things are in a database you can get consistency-checking essentially for free! You can design the system so that you *NEVER* compiler "against the wrong object". You can make it so that you *NEVER* pull an 'oopsie' with a simple textual search-and-replace rename. Moreover, if stored in a database things like version-control can be made more useful by storing only the semantically meaningful changes. Things like "formatting style" become absolutely meaningless because, guess what, the textual-representation gets reconstructed and redisplayed as-needed... and that can be fully customizable to the particular user w/o impacting anyone else. Seriously, that "the industry" remains fixated on _text_ as the de facto medium for storing/maintaining/manipulating programs is disgusting! -- It's like a firearm manufacturer that refuses to use firearms in favor of bows because "it's simpler". Hell, if *"because it's simpler"* is a valid reason to embrace something, might I suggest you look into PHP, after all its implementation (and usage) is "much simpler" than Ada or most any compiled language. > Lets us kill all text-editors and > only use _your_ soon-to-come-any-decade fantastic > super duper editor Who said anything about killing text editors? Of course it'd need a way to display/manipulate the program, and of course it'd need to be able to import/export plain-text. But the fact still remains: the text-based/file-based model is inherently worse because it pushes automatable and verifiable checking directly into the user's lap.