Re: Ada callable from Visual Basic?

[Dave Wood <dpw@sd.aonix.com>]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> In article <62calr$hsk$1@tsunami.traveller.com>, "Dave Smith" <dksmith@traveller.com> writes:
> 
> > I know there are Ada bindings to Win32, but bindings a RAD tool do
> > not make (although bindings are still useful, since Win32 is not *only*
> > a GUI layer).  I know there are compiler vendors (Aonix) out there that
> > include Win32 GUI builders in their tools (prices not advertised,
> 
> I agree that covert pricing is bad, but the pricing itself is not
> that bad.

You'll find this quite common with international companies.
The web does not know national boundaries.  With exchange 
rates, shipping charges, and/ or distributor overhead, 
prices can vary a bit from country to country, and fluctuate
over time.  Providing a full price matrix is both confusing 
to customers and high maintenance for the supplier.  A 
simple phone call or email to the local office will 
provide the desired answer.  In the US, 1-800-97-AONIX.

Even in a single country, there are a lot of different
prices for ObjectAda packages.  They start at $0 (!!) 
and cover a broad range depending on a lot of factors
(platform, feature set, type of user, etc.)

> 
> > multi-level price offerings, uh-oh!!!), BUT WHY??  Visual Basic is a
> > perfectly good GUI builder, and it will always have direct access to
> > the latest Win32 controls.  Ada vendors need to get out of the
> > mainstream GUI business.  To be fair,  Ada DOES need the ability to
> > build custom ActiveX controls in order to compete with Visual C++.
> 
> So for you ActiveX is important, but for me it is not.  The reverse
> could be true for GUI building.

But I find this interesting, because if you want to, you can
build your ActiveX control in C++ and import it into the
GUI Builder (v7.1.1), which would seem to be exactly what you
are asking for.  Reusable components written in other languages.

> 
> > Ada compiler vendors need to ADVERTISE the fact that GUI
> > development is best left to a Visual Basic or Delphi, and concentrate
> > their marketing & development dollars on exposing C++'s
> > weaknesses.
> 
> A requirement to mix tools is a very bad message to advertise.
> Strong fans of any language want the ability to build a complete
> application in that language That is different from saying that
> they will always choose to do it that way.  The choice should be
> one made due to the nature of the problem rather than tools availablity.

I say use whatever combination of tools suit the problem.  For
some people, the ObjectAda GUI Builder is all they want or need.
For others, they will want to work with Delphi.  Some others
will want to work only at the MFC level.  Or gbObjects (the
object library included with the GUI Builder).  Or CLAW.  The 
point is all of these are appropriate in different situations
and all can and will work together.

> >
> > To look at the problem from a different perspective, how sure am
> > I that Aonix's GUI builder will be alive 12 months from now? Not
> > very.  Visual Basic's?  Pretty sure.
> 
> And what assurance do you have that the Visual Basic you get in 12
> months will be the "same" as the Visual Basic you have today. Just
> which standards bodies make Microsoft toe the line on compatibility.
> This week press reports make it seem that not even a legal contract
> with Sun will make Microsoft stick to a language definition.
> 

There aren't a lot of guarantees in life, even with Microsoft.
Have you ever heard of Bob?  For that matter, DOS or Windows 3.1?
MS Mail?  MS Exchange (dying a fast death)?  WinHelp?

On the other hand, the GUI Builder has been around, in one form
or another, for several years.  Aonix has been around, under one
name or another, for 15 years...

-- Dave Wood
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- Aonix - "We don' need no steenking mandate!"
-- http://www.aonix.com