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: 109fba,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,fec75f150a0d78f5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada Date: 1996/03/30 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 144951642 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4iupk7$5t4@tpd.dsccc.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu Date: 1996-03-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4jeel1$erh@tpd.dsccc.com> kcline@sun132.spd.dsccc.com (Kevin Cline) writes: > >Well, I'll give it a shot. This year, it'll be Wintel, PowerPC/Win NT, > >Sun/Solaris, HP-UX and (I believe) PowerPC/AIX. We also expect Wintel > >cross to 32 bit X86 this year. Various PowerPC and 68K cross early next > >year. > > > > Well, that means that today's ObjectAda would not solve > my 1993 problem: writing a Motif application for SunOS 4.1.3, > Solaris, and SGI IRIX. Other than the GCC C compiler, what C compiler could do this now or in 1993? None. Of course, Gnat can do it now too. I am assuming here that you are talking about the fact that ObjectAda does not appear to support IRIX or SunOS (an obsolete OS...) > Some of you may be asking "Why did you use Ada given all these problems?" > I used it because my DoD customer wanted me to. What I'm wondering is, what the f**k your point is wrt to the situation today? > >My experience so far is that the ability to cross compile code developed > >on GNAT or ObjectAda is pretty good - the main issues are in a couple of > >areas: ... availability of identical bindings > > This problem alone is enough to disqualify Ada for development > of medium-sized UNIX applications. Admittedly, until POSIX all > UNIX systems appeared to be slightly different, even to C/C++ > applications, but the differences were relatively minor, well known, > and easily worked around. Different Ada bindings tend to (say) UNIX > tend to be radically different and much more work is required to > translate from one binding to another. I see you are _still_ the clueless wonder. Since Ada95 _portably_ interfaces with C, thin bindings give you everything you get with C (or C++). Now, this may not be all that high level or clean, but they are _exactly_ what the C hack uses. Ada bindings that are "radically different" (or even different...) are those which are _thick_ bindings - ones trying to hide the ugliness of the lowlevel C binding. Since you are a C guy, you apparently get along just fine with these lowlevel bindings and so should not be complaining about using the Ada _thin_ bindings to them - they are effectively identical!! They even _look_ pretty much the same. I'm building a Motif interface and building a couple custom widgets to go with it and the calls to the X, Xt and Motif toolkits look (for good or ill) virtually the same as a C version. So, just what _are_ you talking about? Hmmmm???? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com