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 10.224.172.129 with SMTP id l1mr44356444qaz.4.1373870595583; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:43:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.12.141 with SMTP id y13mr1571106qeb.41.1373870595562; Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:43:15 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!t19no1551645qam.0!news-out.google.com!f7ni2314qai.0!nntp.google.com!t19no1650751qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 23:43:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=41.160.242.244; posting-account=p-xPhAkAAADjHQWEO7sFME2XBdF1P_2H NNTP-Posting-Host: 41.160.242.244 References: <20130712075752.46e2cf01@atmarama.noip.me> <7619c730-b138-4bd9-a0e7-9c80d26f7f00@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <81e2d51a-90a5-4c82-b275-80b345b894f6@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada-Python demo From: Peter Brooks Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 06:43:15 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Bytes: 3109 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182516 Date: 2013-07-14T23:43:15-07:00 List-Id: On Saturday, 13 July 2013 23:06:31 UTC+2, Maciej Sobczak wrote: > > What I found optimal was writing the "engine" in Ada, with a PyGtk-base= d Python GUI (built with GLADE). Then I used JSON over ZeroMQ to communicat= e between the two processes >=20 > >=20 >=20 > > Minimum pain, and maximum productivity. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Heck, I cannot agree with this. Both JSON and ZeroMQ is just low-level me= ss. >=20 > You might want to read this: >=20 > http://www.inspirel.com/articles/YAMI4_vs_ZeroMQ.html >=20 This is interesting - I should have read this before posting my other quest= ion.. However, reading the article, it looks as if YAM14 uses its own data model = language that isn't translatable into any ontology language - which seems a= major problem. Surely a communication language like this ought first to be defined in an o= ntology? >=20 >=20 > I also find it disturbing that you consider JSON to be appropriate on the= Ada side. What about this: >=20 >=20 >=20 > http://www.inspirel.com/yami4/book/10.html >=20 > http://www.inspirel.com/yami4/book/10-2.html >=20 > http://www.inspirel.com/yami4/book/10-4-1.html >=20 >=20 >=20 > YAMI4 allows you to write your next (!) distributed system without sacrif= icing the advantages of Ada. Integration with the Ada tasking model and typ= e safety are features that you should be asking for. >=20 There's a lot of wheel re-inventing here. The advantage of using an ontolog= y is that all the mappings are defined independent of language, so should b= e easy to port into any language that can interpret ontologies without the = need for specific, error-prone interfaces for each language.