Re: what is current status of OpenGL and Ada?

[BrianG <me@null.email>]

On 02/05/2012 07:34 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 2/5/2012 6:00 AM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
>> Le Sun, 05 Feb 2012 07:52:25 +0100, Nasser M. Abbasi<nma@12000.org> a
>> écrit:
>>
>>> current OpenGL is 4.2, released 8,2012.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL
>>>
>>> previous version was 3.3.
>>>
>>> The Ada openGL binding I could find is
>>>
>>> http://adaopengl.sourceforge.net/
>>>
>>> and was last updated on 2003 ! This is like 100 years ago
>>> in computer years.
>>
>
>> Not necessarily. The 2003's API may match your needs. Check it before,
>> only then you will know (newer ≠ better).
>>
>
> I do not have specific needs, just wanted to learn basic openGL
> a little, and thought why not use Ada. But this binding is
> very old, and many releases behind current openGL version.
>
> I can use c++ and use the current openGL, or use Ada and
> use much older API version to learn from.
>
> It seems all the Ada pages related to this are old. Here is
> another related page referenced in the readme for Ada openGL
>
> http://home.arcor.de/hfvogt/programming.html
>
> and it was also last updated in 2002.
>
> It looks like the people who did this initially are all gone
> to do other things.
>
> I like Ada more than C/C++, but it seems to me, it is easier
> and more useful to just use C++ for this sort of thing.
>
> Thanks,
> --Nasser
You could also try GLOBE; it's not OpenGL, but a higher-level library. 
However, it contains an OpenGL binding.  I haven't looked at it 
recently, except to see that it gets updates, but it should be more 
recent than 2003.  It's also the only Ada binding I've seen that doesn't 
blindly follow the C nature of the typical OpenGL function set (every 
function has different named versions for the different parameter sets - 
which even the OpenGL spec 'Red Book' recognizes as not needed for 
languages that allow overloading "like C++ and Ada").

(I occasionally return to my attempt to build a binding, based on the 
'Red Book', but it doesn't hold enough interest for me to keep at it 
very long.  I did learn that you can't use  a single name for all 
versions of a function - because then you can't call it with all literal 
parameters {there's no way to resolve the short/long or float/double 
versions}.  At a minimum, you need 2 names; I prefer to use the 2nd for 
the literal case, but never came up with a reasonable naming convention.)

-- 
---
BrianG
000
@[Google's email domain]
.com