From: Lowe Anthony A <aalowe@cacd.rockwell.com>
Subject: Re: Would a standard 'universal' GUI specification be useful?
Date: 1998/05/11
Date: 1998-05-11T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35578163.66A19614@cacd.rockwell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Essys2.t7.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com
I think Nick's idea is a great idea. I would also resonate with Tucker's idea to
stay with the Java definition. Let Ada do what Ada does best and Java do what
Java does best. With the cross compilation abilities, this becomes even more
powerful for creating all Java byte code executables. Maybe this is a topic
that a SIGAda Working Group (Bindings WG?) would be helpful in instrumenting. It
may also be interesting in seeing what vendors use for their Ada GUI builder's
interface. I know Aonix has a GUI builder which utilizes a win32 binding. I
would be interested in helping with this in any way possible.
--
Tony Lowe Rockwell Collins
1431 Opus Place - Downers Grove, IL 60515
(630)-960-8603 Fax : (630)-960-8207
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-05-11 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-05-09 0:00 Would a standard 'universal' GUI specification be useful? Nick Roberts
1998-05-11 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1998-05-11 0:00 ` Lowe Anthony A [this message]
1998-05-12 0:00 ` Java and Ada ISO standardization Markus Kuhn
1998-05-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-05-12 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1998-05-12 0:00 ` Charles Hixson
1998-06-09 0:00 ` Would a standard 'universal' GUI specification be useful? Michael Erdmann
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox