Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?

[Alexander Kopilovitch <aek@vib.usr.pu.ru>]

chris wrote:

> I'm seriously considering C++ instead of Ada, even though it lacks
> concurrency, just to get access to a wide variety of libs*.  It also
> doesn't help when (some of) the community seem more interested in
> discussing single assignment operators or unbounded/bounded strings than
> addressing the important issues!

The community seems to agree that it is usually not a big deal to create a
thin
binding to any reasonable library of the kind you listed (if you have proper
access to its docs). Moreover, very often you even do not need whole API for
the library, so you need not complete bindings, you need only some part of
it,
and you may add remaining members of the API when you need them. Just one
package
per library, usually quite straightforward and simple. If such a custom (and
possibly incomplete) thin binding is a significant burden for you then you
probably will feel better in C++ (or Java) indeed.

If you think that there are language deficiences that pose problems in (thin)

bindings development, this is another matter - then tell us about those
deficiences, and perhaps someone will advice you with a solution.

If you are dissatisfied with thin bindings and want thick ones then it is
again
another matter. This is not straightforward work, and you can't expect it
done
other way than if either library's vendor or some individual, motivated by
his
own interest will provide you that binding. But once more, if you believe
that
some deficiences of the language make the thick bindings development harder
then complain about those deficiences. (By the way, the issue of literals for

unbounded strings is partially motivated exactly by the problems, which it
poses
for some kind of thick bindings; I met an example of them when I tried to
develop
a thick binding between Ada and Prolog).



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia