Re: Mainstream Ada

["Joachim Schröer" <joachim.schroeer@dornier.eads.net>]

Kevin Cline wrote:

> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<3C78943B.9030600@mail.com>...
> 
>>Richard Riehle wrote:
>>
>>>At present, functional requirements overshadow non-functional
>>>
>> > requirements in the world of commercial software. That is,
>> > features are easier to sell than quality.
>>
>>You know we usually fight over Ada vs. C++ issues, but I think
>>I'm going to take Ada's side here. I don't like Ada all that
>>much, but it's mostly for stylistic reasons. I believe, however,
>>that an Ada programmer can pound out features just as well, and
>>just as quickly, as a Java or C++ programmer. Are you really
>>suggesting that commercial software developers who choose Ada
>>will have to forego adding features to their software? 
>>
> 
> The fundamental problem continues to be the lack of high-quality
> bindings to non-Ada facilities, e.g. OpenGL, Qt, relational databases, etc.
> This does indeed make it much more difficult to add features
> to Ada applications.
> 

There are bindings to nearly all important libraries. I developed the
instrument displays of flight simulators in Ada on top of OpenGL.
The kernel of the class library is free and can be found on
	www.adapower.com/schroer
There is also the possibility to generate your own bindings e.g.
with C2Ada.


Best regards
	J. Schr�er