Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[Dave Wood <dpw@thomsoft.com>]

Chad Bremmon wrote:
> 
> 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.  

I don't recall saying or implying anything about a
trademark.  I merely suggest that you invite confusion
by using it, and I stand by my opinion.  


-- Dave Wood
-- ObjectAda for Windows:  http://www.thomsoft.com

 "We do Ada...
  We do Java...
  We import C code...
  But why botha?"