From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Linux/POSIX packages for GNAT
Date: 1998/02/23
Date: 1998-02-23T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.888252813@merv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 34F16525.17E166AA@cl.cam.ac.uk
Markus said
<<I am at the moment a quite experienced and happy programmer using
a complete ISO C / POSIX.1 conforming development environment (Linux).
I am seriously considering to switch to Ada95, but I will not consider
Ada to be an attractive development language under Linux as long
as I do not know how to get the same rich library/kernel functionality
that I do currently have as a C programmer. The standard packages
>>
That's fair enough. There are three possible solutions to your problems:
1. Use pragma Import to call whatever C functions you know and find useful.
2. Use the existing standardized binding to the the Posix functionality
3. Use some other binding that provides this functionality.
Of these, at the present time, 1. is the easiest and the most portable.
Furthermore, if you already are an experienced user of the Posix interface,
I think you will find this the easiest approach. The standardized binding
is not a completely thin binding, and will require some learning curve,
whereas using approach 1 will require zero learning curve.
<<Sure, I understand that I can always access any
libc function via Ada95 interface pragmas, but it obviously would
be much more convenient to have a native production quality Ada
API such as POSIX.5 available.>>
That's the point, this is not at all obvious to me that this is the case,
especially give someone who is familiar with the existing C interface. Indeed
I would have thought it was clearly the case that it is more convenient to
use pragma Import than a thickish binding. An aggressively thin binding might
be more convenient (basically it would save you the trouble of writing the
pragma Imports), but that is not what the standard provides.
I wonder, have you actually studied the Ada standard in coming to your
conclusions about convenience?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-02-23 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-02-21 0:00 question re Ada equivalent of C function David Fisher
1998-02-21 0:00 ` Corey Ashford
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1998-02-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-02-21 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-02-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-02-21 0:00 ` Jerry van Dijk
1998-02-21 0:00 ` David Fisher
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Jerry van Dijk
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Andi Kleen
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1998-02-22 0:00 ` frc
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1998-02-22 0:00 ` frc
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Linux/POSIX packages for GNAT Markus Kuhn
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Andi Kleen
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Markus Kuhn
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu
1998-02-23 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1998-02-23 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu
1998-03-05 0:00 ` Testing exception handlers James M. Darlack
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Linux/POSIX packages for GNAT Robert Dewar
1998-02-23 0:00 ` Markus Kuhn
1998-02-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
1998-02-23 0:00 ` Markus Kuhn
1998-02-24 0:00 ` question re Ada equivalent of C function Dale Stanbrough
1998-02-23 0:00 ` Linux/POSIX packages for GNAT Andi Kleen
1998-02-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-02-23 0:00 ` Markus Kuhn
1998-02-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-02-22 0:00 ` question re Ada equivalent of C function Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox