Re: object Ada

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <32FB8031.18D@ccis.adisys.com.au> Steve Gibson <gibson@ccis.adisys.com.au> writes:

> Jon S Anthony wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > ????  What's wrong with the Intermetrics X11/Motif bindings for Ada95.
> > I think these things are even up for "ACE" adoption.
> 
> 
> We made some attempt to compile the Intermetrics X bindings with
> ObjectAdaV7.0 on HP-UX10.10. Had a significant number of problems not to
> make it worthwhile. In any case the bindings, so I'm told, are
> significantly different to what we currently use. (since we are porting
> our 83 code, that's important). Passed the problem back to the vendor,
> and was told Aonix tried the same and had the same problems. As far as I
> know, the Intermetrics X bindings were dropped, Aonix will be shipping
> the AXI bindings, good news for me since I'm told they are identical to
> the bindings we use for our Ada83 code.

This is big time bad news.  These bindings should be pretty much
standard Ada95 and so should go through anything supporting the
Interfaces.C hierarchy.  Admittedely I have not looked that closely at
them and have not had the need yet to use themm under ObjectAda.  But,
having Aonix moving over to this AXI binding is a disaster in the
making.  Why?  Simple: Begins again a myriad set of incompatible
bindings from a number of sources.  Ada95 can solve this problem and
there is no reason why there should be more than one of these
bindings.  It _may_ make some sense to have one _thin_ binding and one
_thick_ binding (I'm not even convinced of this - there should be
_one_ _thin_ binding and that's it).  Having more than one after all
the past lessons "learned" from how _bad_ this is, at this point,
absolutely INSANE.  It would just be a reason for potential new users
to _not_ use Ada.

So, ACE members - what's the deal here?

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com