Re: Borland Ada

[ichbiah@jdi.tiac.net (Jean D. Ichbiah)]

In article <3ianqv$ghb@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:


>>4) Does it use the OWL meta-windowing objects?

>No (thank goodness!)

I really do not understand your answer on this point (did
I miss some  smiley?).  Have you used OWL? I have. And as
most OWL users, consider this to be the minimum level required
to program Windows.

Anything below this level (that is, the 800 or so API functions) is
like programming in assembly language.  Please  do not spread 
this kind of misinformation.  It is too bad for Ada that the industry
has not developed this kind of abstraction layer allowing you to
program WIndows efficiently in Ada.  By efficiently, I mean efficiently
in terms of the time you  invest in programming (as well as efficiently
in the old-fashioned sense).

Ada has a future only if a bridge to faster development tools and
frameworks (such as OWL) can be established.  Without this kind
of bridge, Ada will not be cost-effective for developing Windows
applications.  If Ada ends up not being a cost-effective  way to 
develop, how will anyone be able to continue supporting Ada?

Object Pascal may be a lesser language than Ada, but with the Delphi 
environment, its tools, and its components, developing applications in
it will be much more cost-effective than with current Ada environment
(my past association with Alsys prevent me from commenting  on ActivAda).

It is very  important to start looking at ways to bridge Ada with Delphi.

Jean D. Ichbiah