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 09:21:55 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.edu.tw!news.cc.nctu.edu.tw!nctuccca.edu.tw!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 12:21:55 -0500 Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences Message-ID: <3ao0jj$jhg@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> References: <3a6oc5$dkh@nntp1.u.washington.edu> <3aj9a3$4am@s-cwis.unomaha.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu Date: 1994-11-20T12:21:55-05:00 List-Id: Note also that Bill made his decision to rewrite in Ada 9X long before we completed or even designed the GNAT C++ interface. It is not possible to duplicate this interface manually, because among other things, it depends on GNAT using exactly the same dispatch table structure as C++, which is something we have only recently achieved. In addition, neither the C++ interface facilities in GNAT, nor the SGI binding tool that takes advantage of them is complete, so Tom's experience is only a hint of what will eventually be achieved. Nevertheless, I agree with Bill that in some situations it definitely WILL make sense to rewrite interfaces in Ada 9X. Indeed, I am much less concerned about bindings to standard interfaces like CORBA, X, Motif etc than I am about situations like SGI's Inventor. It is the latter more specialized cases where huge interfaces exist in C and C++ and it is vital to be able to reuse them.