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-Thread: 103376,a3446063322b22cb,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit From: Jeff Houck User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Thick vs. Thin bindings Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: $$6dqnji9xhb3w-8.x-privat.org Message-ID: <41a746a0@x-privat.org> Date: 26 Nov 2004 16:07:12 +0100 Organization: X-Privat NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org X-Authenticated-User: $$nw-8xwi-75o4tl-blo2 X-Complaints-To: abuse@x-privat.org Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.newsland.it!news.inet.it!area.cu.mi.it!x-privat.org!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6513 Date: 2004-11-26T16:07:12+01:00 List-Id: As I continue to evaluate Ada in the role of a game dev language, I've run across references to "thick" and "thin" bindings and I'm a bit confused. My initial design goals are to keep the number of external dependancies to a minimum with most of the support code written in Ada. I would like the code interfaces to be as simple as possible to implement for a designer. I believe this would necessitate a "thick" binding. Is that correct? Would anyone like to elaborate on the pros and cons of these two binding methodologies? Further reading material? Tutorials? Thx! -- X-Privat "FREE Usenet" - http://www.newsserver.it