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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9494b48ca8a786de,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Would a standard 'universal' GUI specification be useful? Date: 1998/05/09 Message-ID: <6j0r8s$c0t$1@plug.news.pipex.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 351649263 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-05-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: One of the big wins for projects programmed in Ada is the relative ease with which Ada code can be ported, especially when this is just between different compilers. However, there are many barriers to porting Ada programs between different environments (operating systems). Not least among these barriers is the wide disparity between the various different GUI (Graphical User Interface) - what used to be called WIMP (Windows, Icons, Mouse, & Pop-up Menus) - environments currently extant. In large part, they simply provide different ways of doing the same thing. A standard 'universal' GUI facility (in the form, I fancy, of a hierarchy of library package specifications, together with defining documentation) could provide a single vehicle for Ada programmers to use the facilities of different GUI environments, and the portability of their code would be tremendously enhanced. I believe such a facility could also provide a slightly easier way for Ada programmers to get to grips with a notoriously slippery branch of modern programming (by hiding much of the messy details). However, such a standard would need to be large, in order to cover the wide area of functionality involved (especially considering the necessity for efficiency of implementation), and it would have to be truly impartial and non-proprietary. It would also have to be designed to be flexible enough to allow for the special facilities of individual GUI environments to be made available to programmers, and also to allow extra special facilities to be added when necessary. I would be willing to 'start the ball rolling', by proposing a skeletal GUI structure, which could then be fleshed out and improved upon by those most knowledgeable in the various disciplines involved. I would also be willing to co-ordinate and oversee the project, but hopefully there would be, of the many others more suited to this task than myself, someone who would be willing to take it on. There would undoubtedly have to be a degree of co-ordination with related projects (e.g. OpenGL). I suspect particular care would be required to ensure that the project did not become bogged down by arguments of form (rather than substance). This project would be a big enterprise, so it would surely have to be a highly collaborative effort; it would only work with the participation of a fairly large (if not very large) number of people. If this commitment is not going to be forthcoming, the project is unlikely to succeed. So: (a) do you think this idea worthwhile (would it be used, in practice); (b) would you be willing to make a contribution (even if it's only a small one)? And (c) any volunteers for co-ordinator? To save bandwidth, please e-mail replies to me (at the e-mail address given below), unless you have a comment which will be of wider interest. I will post a summary of the responses, to this newsgroup and wherever else is relevant. I would be particularly grateful if you would disseminate this message to your colleagues, and to anyone else who might be interested. -- Nick Roberts ThoughtWing Software, Croydon, UK ThoughtWing@dial.pipex.com