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,d1533431e7e9d2eb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com Subject: Re: Nontrivial examples of C interface with Ada Date: 2000/05/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 627857297 References: <392EABE5.D7F5D285@quadruscorp.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 959405040 206.170.2.202 (Fri, 26 May 2000 22:24:00 PDT) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 22:24:00 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >Ultimately, I'd build that sort of stuff on top of the binding. What I >think constitutes a "binding" is just the interface to some existing >body of software. Yeah, it will look C-ish, but that's what it is. From >there, you have to define your own environment to do things with a true >Ada flavor. I would agree that including a Simplex LP solver along with elementary matrix operations would be a confusing mix of conceptual levels. But Windows is already conceptualized at a fairly high level. For instance, there's a call to ask the user the name of a file, and then open it. The user may browse around, the request may look at files with only certain extensions, etc. If that's a single call, then I feel there should be a single call to open a socket. Windows itself presents a highly variable level of abstraction, and smoothing that seems to me a legitimate and useful function of a thick binding. Heck, for some purposes a *really* thick platform independent binding is desirable and that's certainly pretty far from "just the interface to some existing body of software". It presents an interface that lets the programmer easily do things that would have been hard with a really thin binding.