Re: Common GUI Environments (was: ADA COMMON ENVIRONMENT (comments))

[Mark Taube {90518} <mmt@swlrap.msd.ray.com>]

On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.961021072343.3261X-100000@swlrap.msd.ray.com>, Mark Taube {90518} <mmt@swlrap.msd.ray.com> writes:
> 
> >>4.  MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes)
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be better to define a portable platform independent
> > "PIGUI" Ada class specification that could "liberate" Ada somewhat.
> > Even Microsoft has made MFC a somewhat portable class framework for
> > the C++ world. Given the considerable language differences between
> > Ada and C++, it seems a clean start reworking ideas already out there
> > would benefit the Ada community. MS Windows is not the be-all, end-all
> > environment for everybody.
> 
> I am convinced that a sufficiently portable GUI programming
> environment will not satisfy the tastes of platform zealots
> in the customer base (those who do not write Ada programs,
> but might purchase them).

 You are probably correct. Actually the only binding I disagree with
is the one to MFC. I agree that this is the defacto industry standard 
for the C++ Windows environment, but I'm pretty convinced that a binding 
to MFC (I just starting working with MFC in C++) is not the way to go. It
would probably be better to define an Ada based class on top of Win32 or
maybe Open32 (can't find any tech docs on this only press releases). I think
Thomson has done something in this area. But the base window type classes 
could be used for any GUI. The specifics for each platform could be added in 
at the appropriate subclass definition. 

> 
> There may be some inhouse efforts where once can force
> a non-conforming (to the platform GUI) application down
> the throats of end users.  Those efforts will probably
> save money (even tax money in the case of government
> projects).

 Actually there are a lot of commercial activites in this area for
C++, including MFC on top of X/Motif. How successful, I don't know.

> 
> But for Ada to be a success in the commercial world it
> is necessary to be able to build commercial applications,
> and at this point in time that means rigorous compliance
> with platform GUI standards.  Thus, I feel the current
> approach of separate bindings for Motif, Windows, etc.
> is the appropriate one.

 But maybe the Ada world could do a better job than the C++ world where
everything wins by market-share and not superior technical implementation.

 (I wish some very experienced OO people would jump into this thread)