Re: Microsoft & Ada

["stephane richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net>]

"Brian May" <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> wrote in message 
news:sa43c1p6lf9.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au...
>>>>>> "stephane" == stephane richard <stephane.richard@verizon.net> writes:
>
>    stephane> *** Loss of standards, like what they did to C++, Like
>    stephane> Borland did to C++ too...they didn't totally destroy C++
>    stephane> but in most cases, code written for Visual C++ tend to
>    stephane> not compile as is on other C++ compilers.
>
> What if, say Microsoft were to design and implement thick Win32
> bindings for functions that are not standardized in Ada? Some
> examples: Win32 GUI or serial IO.
>
> Would this be considered a good thing or bad thing?

*** Well that would be a good thing.  As long as they don't attempt to 
change anything that is part of the Ada 95 or Ada 2005 standard and 
revisions, they can play with whatever they want :-).  Again if it makes Ada 
more usable to window programmers that's their business.  Like you said 
though, it wouldn't be good if it was the ONLY way to develop window 
applications.  A choice of microsoft or non microsoft library perhaps would 
be enough :-).

>
> What if there were able to implement the bindings in such a way that
> they don't have to supply any source code? What if the bindings can
> only be used with Microsoft's compiler? (I guess it may still be
> possible to write an open source library that implements the same
> package specifications).
>
*** This I wouldn't agree on.  Like VB's runtime, they might be tempted to 
do so.  But I wouldn't agree with that notion and wouldn't use it unless I 
was 100% sure that it simply doesn't  exist and I don't happen to know how 
to do it myself :-).

> My personal thought is that code that uses such routines should be
> isolated, so you can still compile the program without these functions
> (perhaps using alternate code). That is, if portability is required.
> In practise, I could imagine code being written that requires the new
> functions without any thought as to making it portable.
>
That's part of the strength of Ada isn't?  Ada.Text_IO is there but I could 
create my own Text_IO and use that one instead right?  If so, and if 
microsoft doesn't get rid of this feature in their version. It's fine by me 
:-).

> I think there are a number of related issues here, so I am curious
> what peoples thoughts are on the matter.

*** Yes, you're right, me I'm thinking the influencial side of things. 
There's all that you mentionned here too and there's the commercial and/or 
competitive side to it too.  What influence will it have on the price of 
other compilers, etc etc....I guess I'm thinking first steps first so to 
speak.  We (the ada community) know the greatness of Ada, perhaps Microsoft 
Visual Ada will help broaden the walls of the Ada community and let other 
developers learn the benifits of Ada :-).

> -- 
> Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>