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: 103376,63585ba5c5be8595
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@cs.rmit.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Ada to Motif bindings
Date: 2000/04/10
Message-ID: <dale-A1924C.22012910042000@news.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 609068380
References: <38E8E8CE.81EC851F@mitre.org> <38EAC651.1DD94F40@home.com>
 <8cffvp$q0s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38EC2DC6.E17A407B@home.com>
 <dale-E9137D.14235906042000@news.rmit.edu.au> <38F17693.F32F2074@home.com>
X-Trace: 10 Apr 2000 23:56:57 GMT, r1021c-02.ppp.cs.rmit.edu.au
Organization: RMIT
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-04-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Glen Cornell wrote:

> Ah! A loaded question.  I wouldn't be so foolish to voice my opinion to
> the world!
> 
> I will point out that Xlib/Xt/Xm programming in Ada brings a new source
> of potential errors:
> 
> 1. Ada-c type conversions.

The family of packages Interfaces.C{.xx} provides good support for
talking to C with compatable types. Certainly roll your own bindings
would be subject to errors. Computer generated ones perhaps less so.
I generally had good experiences with the X/Motif bindings.


> 2. Ada run-time conflicts with the Xt process model.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Perhaps you could give an example.

> 3. Ada threads and the single-threaded nature of X.

Not a problem if you don't use Ada tasks, so there it is no
worse than C.

The only real area that -is- painful, is the use of variable argument
lists (XtVaAppInitialize is an example)


Dale