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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,629e11b80bdec45d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-14 17:00:28 PST Path: archiver1.sj.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!isdnet!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Beard, Frank" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: powerful editors versus IDEs (was: License to Steal) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:59:03 -0400 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 989884814 89436 137.194.161.2 (15 May 2001 00:00:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:00:14 +0000 (UTC) To: "'comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org'" Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.3 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.sj.google.com comp.lang.ada:7505 Date: 2001-05-14T19:59:03-04:00 -----Original Message----- From: Simon Wright [mailto:simon@pushface.org] > Jings! management gone mad! you need to look into a proper source code > management system. CVS is free (so is SCCS, but why you would want to > use it I don't know ..) > > What do your source files look like after a few updates? full of crap > telling me who changed stuff and (perhaps) why, completely obscuring > the program logic and making it look so ugly that anyone with the > faintest sense of aesthetics comes over faint when asked to look at > it. I couldn't agree more. We were forced to do it on Apex, and now we are being forced to do it with PVCS on Windows NT. The only justification that I've heard that has any merit is that it tells you why the change was made. As you say, that seems like very little benefit for the amount of noise and confusion it introduces into the code. I have yet to see it resolve anything. And what's worse, if the change is later discovered to have problems, then you have update comments on top of update comments. Why not just correct the code? Yuck! The CM tools provide a fairly good capability of displaying the differences, making the comments quite redundant. Granted they can be a little difficult to interpret if the change history gets very lengthy.