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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,f15b862e11b575a4 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Shark8 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Air traffic control system in Java Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:22:57 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <6342b733-3e40-4237-b03a-7c29a3f2360b@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com> References: <4d6ffe16$0$17930$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com> <4d712326$0$27719$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <4d712b6a$0$17204$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <0b3daa32-8571-4a7f-a96f-cd876f4c4127@d12g2000prj.googlegroups.com> <4d712e64$0$17204$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <1l023eg1ilrni.xwge3tgrabol$.dlg@40tude.net> <882b38e2-0eaa-4b2e-944c-692eca47908f@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.28.182.16 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1299453777 19914 127.0.0.1 (6 Mar 2011 23:22:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:22:57 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.28.182.16; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18884 Date: 2011-03-06T15:22:57-08:00 List-Id: On Mar 5, 2:01=A0am, "Vinzent Hoefler" <0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776...@t-domaingrabbing.de> wrote: > Shark8 wrote: > > On Mar 5, 12:15 am, "Vinzent Hoefler" > > <0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776...@t-domaingrabbing.de> wrote: > >> Shark8 wrote: > >> > On Mar 4, 10:15 pm, "Vinzent Hoefler" > >> > <0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776...@t-domaingrabbing.de> wrote: > > >> > Interesting you should mention Oberon; I just installed it into a VM > >> > to play with. > >> > {VirtualPC is free now, so if you're using Windows there is little > >> > disincentive > >> > to throwing odd/interesting OSes into a VM.} > > >> I'm happy user of VirtualBox sind a couple of major versions. ;) > > > And that diminishes my pointing out that VirtualPC is free how? > > Not at all. Just wanted to point out cross-platform alternatives. ;) > > > {You're just making my point that it is *easy*/*cheap* to have VMs.} > > Precisely. > > >> > Delphi's VCL is actually one of the best GUI-builders I've seen... > >> > there was > >> > also the Kylix port of the VCL to the Linux environs which fizzled > >> > out, but > >> > iy *WAS* there. > > >> Well, FreePascal has Lazarus, that's probably more cross-platform. :) > > > Possibly, Though I wasn't able to get it to work last time I tried it. > > I hear that a lot. Never used it and there are people actually using it, > so it must work under certain conditions. > > >> > Given that the VCL is basically an object-oriented wrapper of the > >> > Windows [graphics] API > > >> And still, a lot of regular users are /not/ satisfied with what the VC= L > >> offers. And it's already huge (thus, nothing I would put in a standard= s > >> document). > > > I didn't say we should enshrine the VCL as a standard. I *DID* say > > that the VCL presents us with an intriguing possible opportunity to > > implement a GUI hierarchy. > > So did Turbo-Vision. ;) Interesting you should mention TurboVision, I actually have a copy (for BP7, of course)... I was contemplating incorporating it [or something similar] into the UI for my OS. IMO, an OS should have an uniform API such that a text-bases UI like Turbo-Vision *AND* a bit-mapped UI like Windows/Macintosh are both usable. {I hate it when I can't use a utility-program because [say] the mouse is out because of some problem I could fix with that utility had they actually implemented keyboard functionality.} IMO, assuming that the user has a [operational] mouse [or keyboard] is a bad assumption -- that the MS Windows installers nor have a virtual keyboard is a good thing which should be standard (yes, it *IS* somewhat tedious clicking in what would be a quick entry using a keyboard), IMO. > > >> Yes, it is surely *possible*. But it also means that you probably have= to > >> trade look-and-feel against the portability. And that means, users of > >> your Ada-GUI will complain about the differences, will not use it or > >> "patch" it according to their specific needs. > > > True enough. However, the lack-of-GUI may be more weighty than a > > GUI-I-Have-To-Tweak, especially in the minds of Ada-newbies. > > So use GtkAda? It may not be in the ISO-standard (neither is Qt which a > lot of C++ programmers seem to prefer), yet it is _available_. And I > think, especially "newbies" care less about standard than we oldtimers > (although for an Ada programmer, I'm probably one of the younger ones.) I'm thinking that a rather uniform look-and-feel, for general desktop OSes, could be constructed if it were based on a [VERY] thick OpenGL binding -- that way we would have control over the primitives used to build/ display the UI. > >> IMO, there's no point in standardizing such a beast, if you can't get = it > >> right. > > > Ah, but I believe that you *can* "get it right." > > Scroll-bars should scroll; edit-boxes should be editable; spin-edits > > should > > constrain themselves to valid [numeric] values which are modified by > > the > > attached arrow-buttons. > > Yes, they should. Unfortunately, the precise semantics one might require > for one particular control can not be standardized without trading it for > implementation effort or portability. I understand what you're getting at; but I'm not sure that it is a problem. One could have a screen-shot and say "" this is how a 'progress-bar' it to look." A bit draconian, but valid. > Minor example, but I remember a simple progress bar (pygtk). It was cross= - > platform in the sense, that it worked on ever supported system. Yet, its > precise look depended on the window manager/platform. On one only the > progress bar was shown, on another one the percentage was shown inside > the bar, on the other one below it. > > We could live with those differences, yet many users won't like it. > > >> Wasn't there a standard GUI description language (based on XML?) a cou= ple > >> of years ago? What happened to it? > > > Hopefully it died a slow and horrid death. > > I didn't think the basic idea of having a standard GUI description langug= e > was stupid. Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think having a GUI-description language is stupid/bad/misguaded... I *DO* think that XML is the wrong choice for such a language. {IMO, Delphi's DFM files are much better; the DFM-file contains a sort of object-layout where a) only non-default values are supplied, and b) children-objects are indeed components within their parent-object.} As a simple DFM example: http://rafaelromao.blogspot.com/2009/08/parsing-delphi-dfm-file.html > And before they invent another language just for that purpose, > I'd rather see an XML description for it. I rather dislike XML; not because of what it can do, but because of precisely how it is abused; I see it becoming the C/C++ of data formats. (Which is pretty damn sad.) > >> And as mentioned above. To put something like that into a language sta= ndard, > >> you have to keep minimalistic (remember that the vendors need to imple= ment > >> it and cost of implementation is also an issue in terms of standardiza= tion). > >> But being minimalistic also means, that nobody will use it due to lack= of > >> (necessary) features. > > > That's where the beauty of the VCL shines: a 'minimal' implementation > > may > > be extended as needed. {And these extensions are how more complex > > types are > > introduced/elaborated to the user.} > > Have you ever taken a look at a GUI class hierarchy. Even a minimal one > would be quite large, I'd say. Yes; I have. I think the sheer sizes are the one reason for my trepidation on GUIs. > >> IME, if a minimalistic GUI is needed, embed a webserver into your appl= ication > >> and let it start up the browser. This served me well so far. Virtually= everybody > >> knows how to use a browser, and in the days of Web 2.0 such an approac= h is > >> probably even "en vogue". > > > I think Ada could get the upper hand if a) the embedded webserver was > > standard, > > Hmm. Standardizing a thing like AWS might turn out to be easier than stan= dardizing > a whole cross-platform GUI library. > > > b) the events [server-side] were easy-to-handle, > > I don't think that's a problem once you solved the issue of getting the e= vents > back to the server. > > > and c) Ada programmers encouraged/evangelized the method. > > Well, I'd do that. I have always been bad when it came to GUI design, > but spitting out XHTML was easy. :) > > Vinzent. > > -- > A C program is like a fast dance on a newly waxed dance floor by people c= arrying > razors. > =A0 =A0 =A0-- =A0Waldi Ravens I'm liking this discussion; you're quite intelligible and, if I may say, just the proper amount of 'adversarial'* to really spark debate. * Not exactly the right word, but close enough.