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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ed4c57426e16006 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: GtkAda using Glade Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <15ff2ec1-5a2b-4d24-8aab-cf7985b6374f@t19g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <2e496d2c-f12f-4961-981b-2162fdf1ce1e@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <1vakqa4gwjxry$.9j72428ewqp0.dlg@40tude.net> <1npn5zwqehpsz.1lqame09nycx1.dlg@40tude.net> <96992149-4b0b-4de3-b928-545baa8da5ad@y12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:16:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1mzwjt6gs7zf1$.6jm6o3vyikli.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 May 2011 10:16:37 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: d1ee7d71.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=j\3A[28KVPIj7E:bke<5HFMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA8kF8^;Jm2CokI[6LHn;2LCVN[ On Sun, 22 May 2011 00:04:18 -0700 (PDT), Gautier write-only wrote: > On 20 mai, 09:25, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" > wrote: > >> I am not. BTW, this is one of the arguments against Ada generics. They >> wandered to far into the realm of "generated" code. >> >> The point is simple. If the meta language is good, the object language is >> irrelevant. Switch to the former. If you cannot, no reason to use it at >> all. > > Mmmh perhaps I guess you. > You may be disturbed by GUI builders that read and write the GUI info > in one kind of language (like a .rc script) and write generated Ada > code from that information, which is a one-way process. Yes that is the problem. GUI builder translates from a language X (graphical, declarative whatever) into Ada. > It is so disturbing for a purist that you call it an obstacle. If X is so good, why bother about Ada? If not, why do about X? [There is a possibility of coexistence if applications are separable.] I am not a purist, I am a practitioner, who has to fight this and similar mess daily. Any declarative layer (builders, generics/macros, object models, protocol description languages, DB languages, source control/make scripts etc) add an immense amount of complexity. It simply does not pay off. > You'd like to > have it all in Ada: i.e. a GUI builder that is able to understand the > Ada code, display the objects, allow the user to modify them and add > other, or even create a class tree, and whenever you press save, you > have the Ada code (eventually several packages) updated ? Sure it is > possible, based on ASIS of course. Certainly a couple of full years of > programming. You are predicting the death of Ada programming. I am not so optimistic or pessimistic, depending on what you like. What you describe is will not happen. [GUI builders exist for more than 20 years.] -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de