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: 103376,5e2029689121453e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: emery@grebyn.com (David Emery) Subject: Re: binding thickness indicator, was Re: GNAT, OS/2, Libraries Date: 1996/04/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 150432268 references: <4kjaib$bhc@news2.delphi.com> <4l88ik$ed2@news.tamu.edu> organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4l88ik$ed2@news.tamu.edu>, ron@cs.tamu.edu (Ron J Theriault) wrote: > In article <4kjaib$bhc@news2.delphi.com>, tmoran@bix.com writes: > |> I propose we use something analogous to house insulation 'R-values' > |> for indicating the thickness of a binding. R1 would be the thinnest > |> possible, a la single pane window glass, like Tore's example of > |> interfacing to a C routine. R50 would indicate such thickness and > |> insulation that, say, code using an R50 windowing GUI binding would be > |> portable across Mac, Windows, OS/2, and X-Windows. R5 might be the > |> Ada flavor he mentions (type and range checked parameters, raise > |> exception instead of returning success/fail flag, etc) , but pretty > |> much still tied to the particular design, style, and widget offerings > |> of a particular system. Clearly not an exact measurement, but > |> somewhat more specific than thick/thin. > > You've been watching "This Old House" too long! :-) > > If a binding is portable across Macs, X-Windows, and others, just > what is it a binding to? It would seem to be a binding > to a platform independent graphical toolkit of your invention. > -- > Ron Theriault | > CS Department | In a democracy, you only have to fool > Texas A&M Univ. | most of the people, most of the time. > ron@cs.tamu.edu | Although I do not agree with Tmoran's "binding thickness scores" at all, I would like to point out that there are several commercial products that provide a uniform API to a variety of windowing platforms (e.g. X, Motif, MS-Win, Mac, etc.) At least one of them, XVT, has a vendor-supported Ada binding. For those of you attending STC next week, I strongly recommend you take a look at this. XVT will be there (I think they're "teaming" with someone.) dave p.s. disclaimer: While at MITRE, we did a "proof-of-concept" Ada binding to XVT that demonstrated that you could use XVT to write window-system- independent applications in Ada.