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 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,163994d4f34e92d0 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Received: by 10.180.82.226 with SMTP id l2mr298811wiy.1.1343910252268; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 05:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.246.98 with SMTP id xv2mr3407031vec.1.1343910251375; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 05:24:11 -0700 (PDT) Path: n2ni4546127win.0!nntp.google.com!7no4203830wig.0!news-out.google.com!a15ni5333700qag.0!nntp.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Vasiliy Molostov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: how to tell gnatmake to send executables to a different directory when compiling multi source? Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:59:45 +0400 Organization: None Message-ID: References: <214bbd15-f7cb-4710-a6a7-64f37923bf4e@googlegroups.com> <87wr1moexq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87sjcaoa08.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <50167d29$0$6570$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: Xw13RWgh8yxgPSv0x3+H9w.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.00 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Received-Bytes: 3292 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Date: 2012-07-30T16:59:45+04:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0= =BB(=D0=B0) =D0=B2 =D1=81=D0=B2=D0=BE=D1=91=D0=BC =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D1=8C= =D0=BC=D0=B5 Mon, = 30 Jul 2012 16:25:20 +0400: > You mean, compilation processes, in phases, number of intermediate > files, etc., should be kept simple and few, so that proud Make > loving people can continue doing what they seem to be doing? Perhaps I mean that interfacing and incorporating ada related projects = with other stuff, like AWs and tls/ssl. > The Ada experience lets you see the devil in the details, when > it comes to all those changes. Bob Duff gave an example (of > compilation time being a tenth or less). Changes in the C world > require programmers who know both C and the dependency graph of > the entire software. Hence, this creates more opportunities for > more integration tests, all unneccessary to the extent that your > language defines dependence. yep, and the resulting conclusion is that Ada is better here. But better and faster car can not make neighbour's car devil or incorrec= t. It is weak logic to accept that having better tool turns other tools (no= t = yours) to a devil thing. Similar to wearing a different hat you can not make others worse or bett= er = than they are. > 3) [economically] C is a good language for a business model > focussing on a certain class of tools dealing with dependence > of C source files, such as Make. Use the blind spot for gain. Any bussiness is aimed to the profit (fast profit), so the answer here i= s = that the entry cost for C development is much less than for Ada. -- = =D0=9D=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE =D0=B2 =D0=BF=D0=BE=D1=87= =D1=82=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=BE=D0=BC =D0=BA=D0=BB=D0=B8=D0=B5=D0=BD=D1=82=D0=B5= =D0=B1=D1=80=D0=B0=D1=83=D0=B7=D0=B5=D1=80=D0=B0 Opera: http://www.oper= a.com/mail/