home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
- Path: roxi.rz.fht-mannheim.de!duz
- From: duz@roxi.rz.fht-mannheim.de (Dirk Zoller)
- Subject: Re: C++ vs Ada for large project
- Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
- References: <w4wx5wc1a2.fsf@cln46ac> <4ffjrq$i8k@qualcomm.com> <4fgn1t$ku8@nntpa.cb.att.com>
- Sender: news@roxi.rz.fht-mannheim.de (NEWS - system account)
- Organization: Fachhochschule fuer Technik, Mannheim (FRG)
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 20:12:32 CET
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
- Message-ID: <1996Feb10.201232.26568@roxi.rz.fht-mannheim.de>
-
- Kenneth Almquist (ka@socrates.hr.att.com) wrote:
- : I was able to work around the problem, but probably spent a week doing
- : it, and this was on a relatively small program. The larger the program,
- : the harder header files are to manage.
-
- A week seems much for such a minor issue. But from my experience I can
- say that the most trouble in keeping a C program portable accross
- different unix platforms comes from differences in the header files
- provided by the different systems.
-
- You could resort to something like
-
- #include <the file with the correct alarm() decl>
- #define alarm(X)
- #include <the file with the other, wrong, alarm decls>
- #undef alarm
-
- But this ugly hack doesn't work always. Managing header files in a
- larger program can become a major pain. And C++ doesn't address this
- problem, au contraire it even makes it worse because of dependencies
- between class declarations and because when using templates much of the
- implementation code goes into the header files, where it doesn't belong.
-
- I have no experience with large Ada projects yet and can't compare the
- practical use of the concepts though.
-
- --
- duz@roxi.rz.fht-mannheim.de <Dirk Zoller>
-