Re: Ada Foundation Classes

[pontius@btv.ibm.com (Dale Pontius)]

In article <qBA2lAAhOwByEw9h@jswalker.demon.co.uk>,
        John Walker <john@jswalker.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>I don't think you should consider the MFCs as a single lump.  I would
>divide them into two, and possibly three, classifications.
>
People are still talking in the 'MFC for Ada' scheme, here. Perhaps
this is the best way, I don't at the moment know.

However, there are other C++ class libraries than MFC out there.
There are other 'world views' besides MFC to consider. I have
heard people who have used both say IBM's OpenClass has a much
better 'model' than MFC. There are several free class libraries
available, probably with yet different models. I'm not endorsing
any one of these, here.

Simply put...

At the moment, MFC is available for Windows and Mac. Simply
putting an Ada wrapper around it excludes Unices, OS/2, etc.

The way Ada handles data structures, tagged types, etc may
allow making a wrapper around MFC, but that may not be the
best 'Ada way' to approach the problem.

I won't disparage MFC, I don't know enough to know whether
I should or not. I will simply say that before embarking on
a 'Foundation', a little more 'surveying' is called for.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)