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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,45afe5f0a76ee29c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: pontius@btv.ibm.com (Dale Pontius) Subject: Re: Ada Foundation Classes Date: 1996/08/08 Message-ID: <4ucol4$o8i@mdnews.btv.ibm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 172907384 references: <31FE15A6.53A@comm.hq.af.mil> <00001a73+0000309b@msn.com> organization: IBM Microelectronics Division newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , John Walker 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)