Re: Programming language and IDE design

Path	csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.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!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end
From	George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: Programming language and IDE design
Date	Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:57:07 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	48
Sender	johnl@iecc.com
Approved	comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID	<13-10-035@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<13-10-016@comp.compilers> <13-10-022@comp.compilers> <13-10-031@comp.compilers>
NNTP-Posting-Host	news.iecc.com
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	leila.iecc.com 1382669567 54402 64.57.183.58 (25 Oct 2013 02:52:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date	Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:52:47 +0000 (UTC)
Keywords	tools, code
Posted-Date	24 Oct 2013 22:52:47 EDT
X-submission-address	compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address	compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives	http://compilers.iecc.com
X-Received-Bytes	3446
Xref	csiph.com comp.compilers:1018

Show key headers only | View raw

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:55:09 -0400, Stefan Monnier
<monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

>>> Similarly foolish wisdom is seen in IDEs (Integrated Development
>>> Environments) which allow the programmer to create hundreds of lines
>>> of code with just a few clicks of the mouse.  Thus instantly creating
>>> a significant maintenance effort.
>
>> 99% (or more) of generated code will never be touched by a human.
>> Probably 80% of it even will never be looked at.
>> I have never read anything which suggests to me that Dijkstra was - or
>> would have been - against source code generators.
>
>IIUC, the OP was referring to the use of things like templates.
>I.e. case where the generated source code is then edited by the user.
>DSLs, macros, compiler compilers, and other code generators are
>completely different, since the generated code is constantly
>re-generated: it's not "source" code.

My sense was that OP was referring to application wizards more so than
templates or macros.  In any event, I disagree with the notion that
where the fix is applied makes a fundamental difference.  To me the
difference is the probability of a programmer having to look at the
output of the generator.

To reveal potential bias: I have developed GUI applications on Mac and
Windows since early on (MacOS 2 and Windows 3) - I've written
applications for them from scratch, using skeletons and using wizard
generators.  I also have done a fair bit of bare metal embedded work,
and have created several DSL tools myself for various purposes -
including one commercial product.  Consequently I have spent quite a
lot of time over the years poring over code generated by various tools
... assembly listings, parser code, templates and, of course, the
output of my own DSL tools.

IME wizard framework code is simultaneously the least likely to be
looked at, but the most likely to require direct modification when
developing a non-trivial application.

DSL, template and macro generated code is more likely to have to be
traced through - because, charitably speaking, the errors and warnings
from compiling them, and the problems from using them quite often are
difficult to understand without doing so.  However, as you say, it is
the usual case that the problem will be solved in the DSL or template
source.

YMMV,
George

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Programming language and IDE design Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2013-10-17 11:06 +0100
  Re: Programming language and IDE design "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2013-10-19 22:05 +0100
    Re: Programming language and IDE design Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2013-11-07 19:40 +0000
      Re: Programming language and IDE design glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-11-08 05:21 +0000
      Re: Programming language and IDE design Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2013-11-08 06:45 +0100
      Re: Programming language and IDE design George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2013-11-08 16:04 -0500
      Re: Programming language and IDE design "Jonathan Thornburg" <jthorn@astro.indiana.edu> - 2013-11-10 04:41 +0000
  Re: Programming language and IDE design Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2013-10-20 03:22 +0200
  Re: Programming language and IDE design Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-10-20 14:03 -0700
    Re: Programming language and IDE design Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-10-21 14:44 -0700
  Re: Programming language and IDE design George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2013-10-22 16:17 -0400
    Re: Programming language and IDE design Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> - 2013-10-23 03:40 +0200
    Re: Programming language and IDE design wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius) - 2013-10-22 19:56 -0600
    Re: Programming language and IDE design "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2013-10-23 19:09 +0100
      Re: Comments, was Programming language and IDE design "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-08-01 13:15 -0400
    Re: Programming language and IDE design Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2013-10-24 10:55 -0400
      Re: Programming language and IDE design George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2013-10-24 19:57 -0400

csiph-web