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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: scott@plato.ds.boeing.com (Scott Moody) Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada(Bindings) Date: 1996/03/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 143665950 sender: news@plato.ds.boeing.com references: <4ipbdb$6j7@tpd.dsccc.com> organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group reply-to: scott@plato.ds.boeing.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > The Ada community has been particularly slow at agreeing on de facto > standards, while the C community has moved much more quickly. Every > UNIX workstation is now X-windows based and the Ada community still > hasn't agreed on an API to X-windows. I think with the new bindings (generated from the C specs) that things will change. The 'defacto standards' don't have to be agreed by Ada people - we use the C standards, with the slight Ada typing changes. I agree that the Ada people have suffered because lack of standard or portable bindings to X - the same as their reliance on vendor specific bindings. But with new bindings (and not the Posix/Ada) we should be back on equal footing as our C counterparts. Our programmers know Unix/Posix, and love Ada, but making them know some foreign Adaized Posix is not productive. Someone mentioned that we should think more before "getting started right away". I say that we are not really starting right away, instead we are starting 5 years behind our C programmers. -scott (and yes I have read the POSIX 1003.5 manual and rational - and don't agree with it)