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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:15:25 +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> Reply-To: nonlegitur@futureapps.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 09:14:59 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5171b3bf5bf13df9e3826b0cd7250aac"; logging-data="26765"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8cwnoemPFs1D11/LDKOY9Fi/uyHuBPZg=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:zok98bmzZfJKDj4u/kJdsFs7qjQ= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24434 Date: 2015-01-07T10:15:25+01:00 List-Id: 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.