Would a standard 'universal' GUI specification be useful?

Would a standard 'universal' GUI specification be useful?

[Nick Roberts]

One of the big wins for projects programmed in Ada is the relative ease with
which Ada code can be ported, especially when this is just between different
compilers.

However, there are many barriers to porting Ada programs between different
environments (operating systems). Not least among these barriers is the wide
disparity between the various different GUI (Graphical User Interface) -
what used to be called WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, & Pop-up Menus) -
environments currently extant. In large part, they simply provide different
ways of doing the same thing.

A standard 'universal' GUI facility (in the form, I fancy, of a hierarchy of
library package specifications, together with defining documentation) could
provide a single vehicle for Ada programmers to use the facilities of
different GUI environments, and the portability of their code would be
tremendously enhanced. I believe such a facility could also provide a
slightly easier way for Ada programmers to get to grips with a notoriously
slippery branch of modern programming (by hiding much of the messy details).

However, such a standard would need to be large, in order to cover the wide
area of functionality involved (especially considering the necessity for
efficiency of implementation), and it would have to be truly impartial and
non-proprietary. It would also have to be designed to be flexible enough to
allow for the special facilities of individual GUI environments to be made
available to programmers, and also to allow extra special facilities to be
added when necessary.

I would be willing to 'start the ball rolling', by proposing a skeletal GUI
structure, which could then be fleshed out and improved upon by those most
knowledgeable in the various disciplines involved. I would also be willing
to co-ordinate and oversee the project, but hopefully there would be, of the
many others more suited to this task than myself, someone who would be
willing to take it on. There would undoubtedly have to be a degree of
co-ordination with related projects (e.g. OpenGL). I suspect particular care
would be required to ensure that the project did not become bogged down by
arguments of form (rather than substance).

This project would be a big enterprise, so it would surely have to be a
highly collaborative effort; it would only work with the participation of a
fairly large (if not very large) number of people. If this commitment is not
going to be forthcoming, the project is unlikely to succeed.

So: (a) do you think this idea worthwhile (would it be used, in practice);
(b) would you be willing to make a contribution (even if it's only a small
one)? And (c) any volunteers for co-ordinator?

To save bandwidth, please e-mail replies to me (at the e-mail address given
below), unless you have a comment which will be of wider interest. I will
post a summary of the responses, to this newsgroup and wherever else is
relevant.

I would be particularly grateful if you would disseminate this message to
your colleagues, and to anyone else who might be interested.

--
Nick Roberts
ThoughtWing Software, Croydon, UK
ThoughtWing@dial.pipex.com

Re: Would a standard 'universal' GUI specification be useful?

[Tucker Taft]

Nick Roberts (Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com) wrote:

: ...
: A standard 'universal' GUI facility (in the form, I fancy, of a hierarchy of
: library package specifications, together with defining documentation) could
: provide a single vehicle for Ada programmers to use the facilities of
: different GUI environments, and the portability of their code would be
: tremendously enhanced. I believe such a facility could also provide a
: slightly easier way for Ada programmers to get to grips with a notoriously
: slippery branch of modern programming (by hiding much of the messy details).

I would recommend you base this either on the Java AWT, or
on RR's "Claw."  No need to start from scratch in this area.
The advantage of basing it on the Java AWT is that you may
be able to reuse the existing "DLL"s/Shared libraries that
implement the low-level functionality of the Java AWT,
allowing you to write the rest of the code in "portable" Ada.

: ...
: --
: Nick Roberts
: ThoughtWing Software, Croydon, UK
: ThoughtWing@dial.pipex.com
--
-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com   http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc.  Burlington, MA  USA

Re: Would a standard 'universal' GUI specification be useful?

[Lowe Anthony A]

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

Java and Ada ISO standardization

[Markus Kuhn]

Considering that Ada95 is already an ISO standard, and Java is on
the way of becoming one: Is there some coordination going on between
the Ada and Java standards communities?

For instance: Since there are now Ada compilers that produce Java
bytecode available, is someone taking care of whether the needs of
Ada compilers and debuggers are taken into account when the JVM
is being standardized?

In case the Java GUI interface (AWT) gets ISO standardized, it would
be very cool to standardize at the same time an Ada binding to it.
Java and Ada are in many ways similar languages with comparable
capabilities, i.e. APIs for both languages would look similar anyway.
I think it would be a very good idea if the Java and Ada
standardization is closely coordinated and APIs for things like
GUIs are defined for both to allow code frequent reusage =>
cost savings.

Markus

-- 
Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK
email: mkuhn at acm.org,  home page: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>

Re: Java and Ada ISO standardization

[Robert Dewar]

Markus said

<<Considering that Ada95 is already an ISO standard, and Java is on
the way of becoming one: Is there some coordination going on between
the Ada and Java standards communities?

For instance: Since there are now Ada compilers that produce Java
bytecode available, is someone taking care of whether the needs of
Ada compilers and debuggers are taken into account when the JVM
is being standardized?
>>

Can someone clarify what is going on the ISO Java standardization effort.
I assumed the effort was to standardize the language, which of course has
nothing at all to do with standardizing the JVM, which is an (almost)
orthogonal issue.

Yes, other languages may have an interest in JVM standardization, but I
don't see any reason for coordinating the language standards themselves.

Re: Java and Ada ISO standardization

[Tucker Taft]

Markus Kuhn (Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk) wrote:

: ...
: For instance: Since there are now Ada compilers that produce Java
: bytecode available, is someone taking care of whether the needs of
: Ada compilers and debuggers are taken into account when the JVM
: is being standardized?

We are very interested in providing input to the JVM standardization
effort, and have informed various folks at Sun to that effect.  
However, Sun's idea of an "open" standardization process is that they 
produce the draft standard, and then let you send them e-mail comments, and 
then they produce the final standard.  There is no indication of which
comments were considered, and no serious interaction with the various
interested parties.  Allowing Sun to be the submitter of the
Java-related standards was a big mistake, IMHO.

: ...
: Markus

: -- 
: Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK
: email: mkuhn at acm.org,  home page: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>

--
-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com   http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc.  Burlington, MA  USA

Re: Java and Ada ISO standardization

[Charles Hixson]

Considering that the alternative was Microsoft fragmenting the standard
definition, well...
It might not be all that one could hope for, but I feel that it would be
rash to characterise it as a mistake.

Tucker Taft wrote:
> 
> Markus Kuhn (Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> 
> : ...
> : For instance: Since there are now Ada compilers that produce Java
> : bytecode available, is someone taking care of whether the needs of
> : Ada compilers and debuggers are taken into account when the JVM
> : is being standardized?
> 
> We are very interested in providing input to the JVM standardization
> effort, and have informed various folks at Sun to that effect.
> However, Sun's idea of an "open" standardization process is that they
> produce the draft standard, and then let you send them e-mail comments, and
> then they produce the final standard.  There is no indication of which
> comments were considered, and no serious interaction with the various
> interested parties.  Allowing Sun to be the submitter of the
> Java-related standards was a big mistake, IMHO.
> 
> : ...
> : Markus
> 
> : --
> : Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK
> : email: mkuhn at acm.org,  home page: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>
> 
> --
> -Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com   http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
> Intermetrics, Inc.  Burlington, MA  USA

-- 
Charles Hixson	charleshixson@earthling.net
(510) 464-7733	or chixso@mtc.dst.ca.us

Re: Would a standard 'universal' GUI specification be useful?

[Michael Erdmann]

Tucker Taft wrote:

> Nick Roberts (Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>
> : ...
> : A standard 'universal' GUI facility (in the form, I fancy, of a hierarchy of
>
> I would recommend you base this either on the Java AWT, or
> on RR's "Claw."  No need to start from scratch in this area.
> The advantage of basing it on the Java AWT is that you may
> be able to reuse the existing "DLL"s/Shared libraries that
> implement the low-level functionality of the Java AWT,
> allowing you to write the rest of the code in "portable" Ada.

I think this is a popular idea but what it realy means  is that Ada-Programswill
look like java programs regarding the user interface.
I have seen to  often code which i was not able to reuse in a new enviroment
because the impact of the GUI was scattered all over the System (i.e
in Java Appl, Motiv due to event handlers and call backs etc.).
Before attempting something like this we should think about a simple to reuse
GUI concept, that clearly seperates GUI and application. Based on
this idea a set of abstract interfaces should be defined which could
implemented based on the Java AWT Motif or what ever.

>
>
> : ...
> : --
> : Nick Roberts
> : ThoughtWing Software, Croydon, UK
> : ThoughtWing@dial.pipex.com
> --
> -Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com   http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
> Intermetrics, Inc.  Burlington, MA  USA