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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.66.228.102 with SMTP id sh6mr1971009pac.12.1455887258323;
        Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:07:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.182.28.5 with SMTP id x5mr177406obg.8.1455887258285; Fri, 19
 Feb 2016 05:07:38 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!hb3no7060632igb.0!news-out.google.com!l1ni18514igd.0!nntp.google.com!hb3no7060628igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:07:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <na6582$20u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=107.179.250.49;
 posting-account=MRPdDAoAAADUJmZVjnYaoafXFMadSeY1
NNTP-Posting-Host: 107.179.250.49
References: <a04d93e9-31c1-4e2a-b21f-abd82b5123e3@googlegroups.com>
 <na6582$20u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <66c5617d-49e6-40eb-9341-31c6664b1f6c@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: thick bindings, was Re: Vulkan is here!
From: Olivier Henley <olivier.henley@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:07:38 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:29547
Date: 2016-02-19T05:07:38-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:21:26 PM UTC-5, tmo...@acm.org wrote:
> A thick binding, like any API, creates an abstraction intended to be
> easier and safer to program than coding at a lower level.  If you don't
> like the abstraction, don't use it - it's straightforward to code the
> necessary lower level thin binding instead.
>=20
> A thick binding makes many assumptions about the state of the machine and
> coding at the thin binding level likely makes those invalid.  Luring the
> programmer into trying to code at two different abstraction levels at
> the same time is not a kindness.

1. I understand the goals of a thick binding.=20

2. I questioned its architecture.

3. I answered that previously: It is "nicer" when you assume that every one=
 swears by your coding paradigm (the one forced by the thick layer)... whic=
h is, I think, close minded. A standalone thin layer does not prevent anyon=
e else from undertaking a thick layer over it and still retains freedom for=
 others.

4. It is not THAT straightforward to make a pristine lower level thin bindi=
ng as both Per Sandberg and Simon Wright have to exchange to clarify possib=
le caveats.