From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-03 17:32:17 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.vmunix.org!news1.spb.su!news.peterlink.ru!not-for-mail From: Alexander Kopilovitch Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 04:42:50 +0400 Organization: Peterlink ISP News System Message-ID: <3F7E178A.3910DC2@vib.usr.pu.ru> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: spb-3-203.dialup.peterlink.ru Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.peterlink.ru 1065227536 82543 195.242.18.203 (4 Oct 2003 00:32:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@peterlink.ru NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:32:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,ru Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:186 Date: 2003-10-04T04:42:50+04:00 List-Id: 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