Who Uses X11Ada?

Who Uses X11Ada?

[John Zawada]

My company, Integrated Computer Solutions, is currently updating the Ada
code generation for our product BuilderXcessory.  Currently, we support
the SERC AdaMotif bindings for the SunAda and Apex Ada compilers on Sun
platforms, but I'm trying to convince my boss that we should add GNAT
and X11Ada support.  He wants to make sure that people are actually
using GNAT/X11Ada for real projects.

Are people out there using GNAT/X11Ada for serious projects?  Any
feedback would be useful in helping us out.

John Zawada
Integrated Computer Solutions, Inc.
john@ics.com

Re: Who Uses X11Ada?

[Brad Balfour]

In article <32655F1B.41C67EA6@ics.com>, John Zawada <john@ics.com> wrote:

>My company, Integrated Computer Solutions, is currently updating the Ada
>code generation for our product BuilderXcessory.  Currently, we support
>the SERC AdaMotif bindings for the SunAda and Apex Ada compilers on Sun
>platforms, but I'm trying to convince my boss that we should add GNAT
>and X11Ada support.  He wants to make sure that people are actually
>using GNAT/X11Ada for real projects.
>
>Are people out there using GNAT/X11Ada for serious projects?  Any
>feedback would be useful in helping us out.

Absolutely people are. 

My company supports a number of the Ada Joint Program Office's Ada 95
Transition Partner Projects. Most of the projects are using GNAT as their
primary compiler.

Many of them have a requirement for an X-Windows based GUI. Of those that
do, the Intermetrics generated X11Ada bindings are the natural ones to
use. In fact, the biggest current limitation at this time is that there
aren't any GUI builders that generate Ada 95 code and target xlib, xt, and
motif. The only product doing so right now is ScreenMachine from OIS which
uses it's own high level x-windows interface. So there is a large market
window for ICS.

The Intermetrics genterated X11Ada bindings are also currently nominated
for endorsement by the ARA (Ada Resource Association) which would then
make them a defacto standard and would ensure that the same binding would
be distributed by many differnet compiler vendors. For more information on
this contact the ARA mailing list (ara@ocsystems.com).

Because these bindings make full use of the new Ada 95 Annex B features,
the package specifications are compiler independent. If BuilderXcessory
generated Ada 95 code targeted at these (defacto standard) bindings, the
resulting software would be portable to any compiler/platform which
provided a set of bodies for the packages. This is a *very* different
situation from that in Ada 83 where all bindings were compiler specific.
No Ada 95 bindings need to be compiler specifc.


>John Zawada
>Integrated Computer Solutions, Inc.
>john@ics.com

--
Brad Balfour
AJPO Ada 95 Transition Support          SIGAda WWW Server
CACI, Inc.                                http://www.acm.org/sigada/
(703) 277-6767                          and also try:
bbalfour@std.caci.com                     http://www.adahome.com/
**new address: 3930 Pender Drive * Fairfax, VA 22030 * 703/277-6767 **

Re: Who Uses X11Ada?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <32655F1B.41C67EA6@ics.com>, John Zawada <john@ics.com> writes:
> My company, Integrated Computer Solutions, is currently updating the Ada
> code generation for our product BuilderXcessory.  Currently, we support
> the SERC AdaMotif bindings for the SunAda and Apex Ada compilers on Sun
> platforms, but I'm trying to convince my boss that we should add GNAT
> and X11Ada support.  He wants to make sure that people are actually
> using GNAT/X11Ada for real projects.

What exactly do you have in mind to "support GNAT" ?

While some design-time hooks to interface with the GNAT development
environment might be appropriate, I would presume the _output_ of
your tool should work equally well with any Ada 95 compiler in an
environment which supports the underlying Motif/X11/CDE/whatever.

Just as users who want to move their code between platforms are
helped by the standardized nature of Ada95, likewise tool vendors
who produce code in a mechanized fashion should be helped by the
standardized nature of Ada95.  And users who need those tools are
aided by the greater portability of the output.  Whether it is
easy to port your tool itself between platforms may depend on your
own choice of implementation language :-).

Larry Kilgallen
who looked into BuilderXcessory once but needed a different platform