Re: questions on Ada openGL binding in the GLOBE3D packages

["Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>]

On 8/2/2012 5:19 AM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>
>
> Subjective opinion and matter of taste.
>

That is the exact reason why a thin binding should have the same
exact naming as the language being mapped to. So that nevery
one makes up a name they like on the Ada side.

> FWIW, I prefer the Ada-style names.

You prefer one style, I prefer another style, a third person prefers
another style.

So we end up with 10 different Ada programs, written by 10 different
programmers, all using the same OPEN GL.

Why not keep things standard? The standard is there. No reason to change
the names just becuase you do not like this name and I do not like that
name.

When one looks at C code, all the calls are the same everywhere.

>
> The C-style names are needlessly long and tedious.

It does not matter really. It is the standard. It makes the code easier to
understand if the same names are used in Ada and C and Fortran and in
any other language. The same exact names.

Any way, that is what I think. We agree to disagree I guess.

I'll use the 2002 openGL binding to learn a little bit of Ada openGL
from, since it matches the C API. So, I am all set now :)

regards,
--Nasser