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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,952fe842e519781
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Common GUI Environments (was: ADA COMMON ENVIRONMENT (comments))
Date: 1996/10/21
Message-ID: <1996Oct21.104144.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 190950514
x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org
references: <Pine.ULT.3.91.961021072343.3261X-100000@swlrap.msd.ray.com>
x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN
x-trace: 845908950/3371
organization: LJK Software
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.961021072343.3261X-100000@swlrap.msd.ray.com>, Mark Taube {90518} <mmt@swlrap.msd.ray.com> writes:

>>1.  The X Window System (X11)
>>2.  Win32 (MicroSoft Win32)
>>3.  ODBC (Open Database Connectivity)
>>4.  MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes)
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to define a portable platform independent
> "PIGUI" Ada class specification that could "liberate" Ada somewhat.
> Even Microsoft has made MFC a somewhat portable class framework for
> the C++ world. Given the considerable language differences between
> Ada and C++, it seems a clean start reworking ideas already out there
> would benefit the Ada community. MS Windows is not the be-all, end-all
> environment for everybody.

I am convinced that a sufficiently portable GUI programming
environment will not satisfy the tastes of platform zealots
in the customer base (those who do not write Ada programs,
but might purchase them).

In reading the manual for the MacApp GUI framework for
MacOS, I found additional ammunition in the strong support
provided for AppleScript and the Macintosh Open Scripting
Architecture.  These are checklist requirements for many
in purchasing Macintosh software these days.

Likewise as a user of the Common Desktop Environment for
Motif, I would want to buy an application which provided
support for reactivating itself in the same workspace (I
may have the terminology slightly wrong) the next time I
logged in.

Working with ObjectAda for Windows (and reading the
Windows 95 book which was recommended on c.l.a) I have
recently learned about "Multiple Document Interface"
windows, and they seem to have no counterpart on the
Macintosh or in Motif.

This experience leads me to presume that OS/2 will
also have at least one GUI programming mechanism
which is unique.

The commercial (non-Ada) efforts to provide a uniform
GUI programming environment even between just Windows
and Macintosh have all come up short of the requirements
of platform advocates of either persuasion, and those
which truly are designed in an agnostic fashion (not
Apple porting to Microsoft or vice versa) generally
are found wanting in _both_ environments.

There may be some inhouse efforts where once can force
a non-conforming (to the platform GUI) application down
the throats of end users.  Those efforts will probably
save money (even tax money in the case of government
projects).

But for Ada to be a success in the commercial world it
is necessary to be able to build commercial applications,
and at this point in time that means rigorous compliance
with platform GUI standards.  Thus, I feel the current
approach of separate bindings for Motif, Windows, etc.
is the appropriate one.

Larry Kilgallen
using Ada without a Mandate