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!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEx1bmRpbg==?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 22:15:17 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 21:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="edcd57aa7b7d0a640de5f364a7af93e6"; logging-data="27362"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fLAiWmt20AO3sEd3RVoLn" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.2.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:AD/cQJl1JadpNlkDvzXb87wGCkA= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24428 Date: 2015-01-06T22:15:17+01:00 List-Id: On 2015-01-06 21:52, Shark8 wrote: >> 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. becasue ? > > Really? > What has file-centric and "distributed among tools" setups brought about > (a) in terms of configuration complexity? I do not know And I do not see the relevance >(b) In terms of organization complexity/dependence? I do not know And I do not see the relevance And (c) in terms of consistency complexity? I do not know And I do not see the relevance > (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? I do not know And I do not see the relevance here either. > (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? No. Unheard of. Did not think it was possible. > > 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". How do you do for accomplish linking out-of-date objects ? You seem really hung up on this, so I interpret it as it happens often. Does it? >You can make it so that you *NEVER* pull an > 'oopsie' with a simple textual search-and-replace rename. So why would a db-based ide be better on this thatn a file based? > 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. And that would make you be the most impopular man, if our company set the standard for that. People get _really_ upset if you tamper with a 15-year old comment. Or changeing case on variables. Automatic re-writes is a nono. (a bit conservative. I know) > Seriously, that "the industry" remains fixated on _text_ as the de facto > medium for storing/maintaining/manipulating programs is disgusting! -- Very much seems disgusting to you... > It's like a firearm manufacturer that refuses to use firearms in favor > of bows because "it's simpler". It would be simpler to deny weapons at all ... > > 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. No. I like thing s to be simple AND safe. PHP does not match safe. I also like the KISS principle. Less errors because of overly complex configuration. I like it simple so I do not need to explain stuff for my colleagues. I compile stuff with -O0 and -g to get good stack-traces when needed. To catch errors, and understand them as soon as possible, so a fix can be provided. Yes, i like simple stuff, because they break more seldom. But don't confuse simple with bad. And I also like to auto-generate objects from xml-files that wraps access to database-tables. Output is Ada-files. Print to standard_output and redirect to file. Simple. Works. Not needed to fiddle with API to access your IDE-DB or whatever you can provide. If you provide other input means than your IDE. >> 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. ok - rephrase to 'lets kill all editors that saves to file' > > 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. > Things your coming IDE can catch by saving to DB, it could also catch when save to file. Consider the file system your db. -- Björn