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: 30 Sep 92 16:31:04 GMT From: emery@mitre-bedford.arpa (David Emery) Subject: Re: Ada's (in)visibility Message-ID: List-Id: >To be fair Xlib is not suitable to mulitasking and most large Ada systems use >tasking. There is no good solution to this problem yet. There is a very good solution to this. Don't use tasks. Write sequential Ada. This provides EXACTLY the same kind of program you would get if you wrote the application in C. Just because Ada has tasking, there is no obligation to use it in any specific application. I'm always bothered by people who use lack of support for Ada's advanced featuers to write a program in C that can be done in equivalent Ada (without tasking, for instance). An true Ada binding to Xlib should handle the tasking issue (perhaps by abstracting a kludge). This is one of the things that makes doing good Ada bindings non-trivial. If someone tries to sell a "binding" to Xlib that does not handle tasks, he's not selling a binding. Instead, he's selling PRAGMA INTERFACE(C), without doing any of the real work. The real solution for Ada and X Windows will occur when X Windows is multi-threaded in a way that meshes with Ada tasks. dave