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,c30d9137a672c74d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Jere W. Retzer" Subject: Re: Ada95 for Windows 95 Reviewers Wanted Date: 1996/03/25 Message-ID: <3156F778.705C@nsrvan.van.wa.us>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 144196593 references: <01BB15A1.A55A5820@janusada.msn.fullfeed.com> <4ivkd2$gkp@azure.dstc.edu.au> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: National Systems & Research Co. mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) Date: 1996-03-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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?