From: "Jere W. Retzer" <jretzer@nsrvan.van.wa.us>
Subject: Re: Ada95 for Windows 95 Reviewers Wanted
Date: 1996/03/25
Date: 1996-03-25T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3156F778.705C@nsrvan.van.wa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4ivkd2$gkp@azure.dstc.edu.au
Stephen Crawley wrote (in part):
>
> I'm in no position to judge whether or not RR's bindings are of good
> quality, but I think that my point is a valid one anyway. The Ada
> user community would not be well served by having lots of mutually
> incompatible W95 binding products. I would hope that the Ada
> community is now mature enough to strongly resist such a trend!
>
Two of the advantages of Ada being its readability and portability, I would
be interested in what people think of the readability of windows Ada code.
My first reaction to the win32 bindings code I have seen is that it is
difficult to read, but I am admittedly new. Also, what happens to
portability in general when the program is targeted to an environment that
requires bindings? For that matter, will we have portability problems if we
use bindings from different vendors as implied above? Are these two
attributes affected by the 'thickness' of the binding as it is being
discussed here?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-03-25 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-03-19 0:00 Ada95 for Windows 95 Reviewers Wanted Ian Goldberg
1996-03-21 0:00 ` Mitch Gart
1996-03-23 0:00 ` Stephen Crawley
1996-03-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-03-26 0:00 ` Stephen Crawley
1996-03-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-03-27 0:00 ` Stephen Crawley
1996-03-25 0:00 ` Jere W. Retzer
1996-03-26 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1996-03-27 0:00 ` Tom Griest
1996-03-25 0:00 ` Jere W. Retzer [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1996-03-25 0:00 Simon Johnston
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox