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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-30 09:44:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!zeus.visi.com!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!207.35.177.252!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor References: <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> <400E72F9.8060501@noplace.com> <100upo7ln5e3k59@corp.supernews.com> <400FC8E8.2040100@noplace.com> <_JSdna166JuxFo3dRVn-hg@comcast.com> <401115B7.5020205@noplace.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:29:41 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1075483728 198.96.223.163 (Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:28:48 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:28:48 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5108 Date: 2004-01-30T12:29:41-05:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > : > : But this gets back to maintaining many mostly parallel > : pieces of code. > > Well, yes. It is very centralised though. > The ideal scenario for me would be a declaration (using > clickable check boxes or editing text) that > effectively creates a program view. This means, I specify > what I want at a high level and the computer compiles this > into a corresponding source text view. True, but there are other factors to consider in development. Mind you this is a "developer convenience" issue, but once you compile and/or debug, and you realize that line 905 of xyz.adb needs to be changed, where must the real editing be done? Probably not the file that the compiler used, because it was generated by some other tool. Often what happens is the xyz.adb gets edited, and the change is lost. Tracing back to the where the change really has to go is inconvenient, if not extremely so. If you're trying to sort out a problem with open sourced project(s), then you have to sort out how the creator/maintainer set things up for you (each project will be different). Again, I find this annoying at best. > When I see > > if > context_clause_A > fi > source > source > if > variant_A > else > variant_B > fi > source > source > if > addition_A > fi > source > > this looks like assembly language to me, with all its flexibility. Yes, this is ugly, but not always _this_ ugly. Furthermore, if this ugliness were confined only to thin bindings, I could live with that. No Ada programmer wants to see this throughout his project. > But why do we build higher level text structures and compilers? I don't understand your point here. > It is interesting that programmers and in particular those > with an engineering attitude have not built machinery to solve > the problem in a high level systematic manner. Why? > > There is an opportunity to sell something, or selling support, > or starting a community effort... > > -- Georg I think the real reason is that people are holding out for the "ivory tower" (aka "elegant") solution. There is nothing wrong with this in principle, but I think it is fair to say that after 12-20 years, if no solution has emerged, then the standard has been set too high. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://ve3wwg.tk