Re: is getting OpenGL to work with Ada a lost cause?

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

On 8/3/2014 11:46 AM, Shark8 wrote:
> On 03-Aug-14 03:54, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> I have no idea why existing Ada bindings are so difficult to make working.
>
> Because in order to make a good [thick] Ada binding you have to "strain"
> all the crap from the gl_enum soup; ideally this would entail the
> creation of specific enumerations for the various parameters of the
> various functions but with the addition of subtyping for various
> near-complete matches on values.
>

I do not think even the concept of thick Ada binding to openGL is
a good idea at all. The reason is not technical. But since all
documentation on the net, and the books on openGL all use
the 'thin' binding (original API), then if Ada would use its
own thick binding, it means one can not make use of all these
books and tutorials anymore.  (I have openGL books, all use
the C API, I'd like to still use these if I want to use Ada).

Thin, 1:1, binding to commonly used C libraries is the best, since
it allows one to use existing documentation to learn how to use it.

--Nasser