Re: Mainstream Ada

["Al Mole" <almole@nearlyware.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1610 bytes --]

Would you say it was advisable to attempt a games engine in Ada using the
OpenGL bindings ?

"Joachim Schr�er" <joachim.schroeer@dornier.eads.net> wrote in message
news:3C8601CB.6050906@dornier.eads.net...
> Kevin Cline wrote:
>
> > Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<3C78943B.9030600@mail.com>...
> >
> >>Richard Riehle wrote:
> >>
> >>>At present, functional requirements overshadow non-functional
> >>>
> >> > requirements in the world of commercial software. That is,
> >> > features are easier to sell than quality.
> >>
> >>You know we usually fight over Ada vs. C++ issues, but I think
> >>I'm going to take Ada's side here. I don't like Ada all that
> >>much, but it's mostly for stylistic reasons. I believe, however,
> >>that an Ada programmer can pound out features just as well, and
> >>just as quickly, as a Java or C++ programmer. Are you really
> >>suggesting that commercial software developers who choose Ada
> >>will have to forego adding features to their software?
> >>
> >
> > The fundamental problem continues to be the lack of high-quality
> > bindings to non-Ada facilities, e.g. OpenGL, Qt, relational databases,
etc.
> > This does indeed make it much more difficult to add features
> > to Ada applications.
> >
>
> There are bindings to nearly all important libraries. I developed the
> instrument displays of flight simulators in Ada on top of OpenGL.
> The kernel of the class library is free and can be found on
> www.adapower.com/schroer
> There is also the possibility to generate your own bindings e.g.
> with C2Ada.
>
>
> Best regards
> J. Schr�er
>