Re: questions on Ada openGL binding in the GLOBE3D packages

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 02.08.12 13:12, Egil H�vik wrote:
>> Why not keep things standard? The standard is there. 
> 
> You seem to be confused. What you call "the standard" is
> just the C binding. The standard explicitly states that
> example syntax is in C, and that other languages with better
> namespace handling and subprogram overloading can do things
> differently.
> Writing GL.Vertex is more readable than GL.glVertex2d.
> Let the compiler figure out the types of your parameters, 
> and how many, you specify. It will complain if it can't find 
> a match.
> 
> Some people complain about Ada being too verbose; In this case,
> I would say C is more verbose, why should that be a bad thing 
> for Ada?

Perception provides for a valid argument: If books about
OpenGL, and other material considered relevant,
use the names and example syntax, this creates
an expectation. To dispel the power of expectations,
you'd need to name a few killer features, features
that warrant deviation from what everybody else is
perceived to be doing. Or you'd demonstrate, convincingly,
that a significantly perceivable number of relevant
teams do *not* use the expected names and syntax.

There were two bindings to the OS/2 API. One binding copied
IBM's names exactly, as they were used in IBM's documentation,
reflecting the names in the C based O-O system: DosXyz123,
GpiSomeThing, WinEtcFoo. The other binding made Dos, Gpi, Win,
... into packages. Not everyone agreed with the second
approach. The argument against package might be stronger
in this case because IBM's O-O design was written in C,
IIUC, so these were the "real" names.

It there a strong technical argument in favor of
using package software in stead of names implying
packages? Better visibility control? Better compilation
performance due to separation? Better change management
by modularization?