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,f3626f4efb76f39b,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Mark Taube Subject: bindings disaster! Date: 1997/02/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 218256503 Organization: Raytheon Company Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-02-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I thought Jon Anthony's post was worth a re-post. Anybody who has been through the whole Ada83 X-bindings disaster would agree. A one-time painful port to Ada95 would be better. Has ACE disappeared already? Please read his comments. ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------