Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>]

On 06.01.15 22:15, Björn Lundin wrote:
>> (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.
>

Assume there is a standard way of describing the graph
of dependence of a software product to be.

Then, no matter which compiler you choose, no matter which
operating system you use for development, the standards based
development environment is going to do the right
thing when selecting units and dependencies.

Because the compiler performs the selections in terms of the
standard description.

There is no standard description of the net of dependence
for Ada programs. Whether that standard would rely on text or
on a database or whatever for its implementation is a secondary
concern, I think.

I'd expect vendors to tell tales about APSE failure, about flexibility,
about operating systems, about licensing, about the HALTing problem etc.
So each finds a reason to provide their own configuration language…

What's the situation with other languages?

Eiffel has a configuration language as part of the
language definition.  Other languages have developed highly
specialized solutions. They are complex to configure, although fairly
easy to "run" after some initial training. In fact, in the labor market,
job descriptions will typically mention these tools as a qualification.

The qualifications such as knowing Maven, knowing bower,
knowing VS 9, knowing DevOps topics, knowing Eclipse (not Netbeans),
known the umpteenth framework, typically is of no lasting
value for most programmers, because "The Market" makes
most of these specializations in software configuration worthless.
They are replaced every now and then with something different.
Maintenance jobs are fewer.

Learning programming languages is relatively easy in comparison to
memorizing yet another configuration language … a "necessary" evil,
like also memorizing yet another markup language is … another "necessary"
evil.

Industry does not value standards for configuration and frameworks,
since vendors, consultants, and publishers have successfully done a lot
to lure industry into standards avoidance there.