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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b19fa62fdce575f9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-20 09:18:30 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!news.dfn.de!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
Date: 20 Nov 1994 12:18:30 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3ao0d6$jgp@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <3a6oc5$dkh@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <Cz9H4I.5HK@ois.com>
 <REINHOLZ.94Nov14160702@SG0D12.sig01> <3aj9a3$4am@s-cwis.unomaha.edu>
 <ichbiah.54.2ECE3971@jdi.tiac.net> <CzK17K.Ino@ois.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-11-20T12:18:30-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Following Bill's comments on rewriting C++ interfaces (we really *should*
change the title of this thread, it is long ago obsolete, and was never
reasonable, since it presumes a false fact :-)

Indeed, rewrites may be appropriate for important standard interfaces, but
realistically, it is inconceivable to rewrite all interfaces. Tom Quiggle
got the Puck program operating in four days with the reuse approach. 
Rewriting Inventor in Ada 9X would be, I would guestimate, a several
person-year project.

One other approach here is to put the energy in at a slightly different
level. Use a tool to generate a thin binding, and then build a thick
binding with the desired abstractions above it. This has the advantage of
presenting a more appropriate interface without rewriting the C++ class
definitions, and may be the appropriate approach in many situations.