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: 103376,59f7ca851a394aa3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bjw@mirage.iassf.easams.com.au (Brendan WALKER)
Subject: Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
Date: 1996/11/13
Message-ID: <56ari3$htp@mirage.iassf.easams.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 196085545
references: <E0Mo5L.n2E@atf.cmg.nl> <32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr>
organization: EASAMS (Australia) Pty Ltd
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr>,
Steve Jones - JON  <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
>Michiel Perdeck wrote:
>> 
>> I can think of some reasons, can you refute them?

[snip]

>> 4. Ada is not right for GUI programming.
>This just isn't right, the project I'm on at the moment has zero lines
>of C code in it, uses Ada bindings for PEX and X and gets along just as
>well as the last project where we used C for the GUI.  The only problem
>is that the bindings aren't as powerful as they could be.  You just have
>to be smarter.

Yes but how many of the numerous inexpensive and effective GUI
development tools generate Ada code automatically? The answer is hardly
any and the ones that do are *very* expensive and often not as good.
OK, if you want to write X-windows based GUI's from scratch all the
time use Ada with X bindings (Yuk!), fine. But the smart players use
tools to generate the majority of their GUI code automatically, and this
pushes them towards C++, particularily if they are using an OOD paradigm
for their overall system design.

Regards,


-- 
Brendan Walker	        | The opinions expressed above are obviously
IASSF Project, 	        | the ramblings of a troubled mind, and 
GMS S3I (Australia)     | therefore not those of my employer.