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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5e2029689121453e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mg@asp.camb.inmet.com (Mitch Gart)
Subject: Re: binding thickness indicator, was Re: GNAT, OS/2, Libraries
Date: 1996/04/17
Message-ID: <Dq0LH0.Iuw.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 147998066
sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news)
x-nntp-posting-host: asp.camb.inmet.com
references: <4km8oa$151g@mdnews.btv.ibm.com>
organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dale Pontius (pontius@twonky.btv.ibm.com) wrote:

: Another year or so and the thick/thin GUI issue may become less
: important, as new native cross-platform APIs get added to current
: OS offerings.

I agree that cross-platform APIs are an important trend.  Not "new"
technically but "new" in the sense of having much wider acceptance
than before.

But it's not necessarily true that the thick/thin issue goes away.
Take the example of the Java AWT (Abstract Window Toolkit).  An
Ada binding to AWT can be very thin, using as closely as possible
the Java names and conventions, or could conceivably be thicker,
making changes that the person designing the binding decided were
desirable in an Ada programming interface to the AWT functionality.

- Mitch Gart