Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Chad Bremmon <chad.bremmon@comm.hq.af.mil>]

Dave Wood wrote:
> 
> Dale Pontius wrote:
> >
> > In article <31FE15A6.53A@comm.hq.af.mil>,
> >         Chad Bremmon <chad.bremmon@comm.hq.af.mil> writes:
> > >
> > >I would like to get started on some work with
> > >Portable Ada Foundation Classes.  If any of you
> > >have looked at the WWW site, you know it hasn't
> > >been updated for a while.
> > >
> > The name Ada Foundation Class kind of smacks of Microsoft
> > Foundation Class. There are a couple of points about this...
> 
> I agree that a different name would be more
> appropriate.  We are providing a binding to
> MFC as part of the ObjectAda for Windows
> product line, under the name Ada Foundation
> Classes.  The notion of "Foundation Classes"
> is pretty tightly tied to Windows and MFC in
> particular, and especially bring to mind C++.
> 
> You need something more generic, like
> Canonical Ada Classes (CAC).

I highly doubt that "Foundation Classes" is a trademark of Microsoft.  Object Oriented also brings 
to mind C++ for most people.  That doesn't mean Ada can't have foundation classes.  Nor does it mean 
they have to match Microsoft's.  I might suggest that your name should be something more specific 
like "Microsoft Foundation Classes for Ada."

> 
> -- Dave Wood
> -- ObjectAda for Windows:  http://www.thomsoft.com
> 
> "We do Ada...
>  We do Java...
>  We import C code...
>  But why botha?"