From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 26 Oct 92 20:37:41 GMT
From: emery@mitre-bedford.arpa  (David Emery)
Subject: Re: Meridian Ada for MS Windows
Message-ID: <EMERY.92Oct26153741@Dr_No.mitre.org>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

This is an instance of the larger debate on "thin vs thick" language
bindings.  

The arguments for thin bindings are:

	1.  efficiency (no extra Ada layering)
	2.  reuse of existing documentation
	3.  ease of development

The arguments for thick bindings are:

	1.  appropriate Ada coding style/abstraction
	2.  support for Ada features (e.g. exceptions, tasking)

The POSIX/Ada binding (IEEE Standard P1003.5) is an example of a thick
binding.  This document has a lot of (very good) rationale on the
topic.

Personally, I'm very much in favor of thick bindings as products.  If
all I wanted was a thin binding, I'd either program in C, or do it myself.

				dave