How is Ada's GNOGA better than C++'s Wt?

How is Ada's GNOGA better than C++'s Wt?

[Dan'l Miller]

From over on the lengthy How-to-get-Ada-to-”cross-the-chasm” posting, but this  topic deserves its own top-level posting:
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 11:55:45 AM UTC-5, polymorph self wrote:
> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 5:49:01 PM UTC-4, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> > http://cppdepend.com/blog/?p=994
> > 
> > “According to Moore, the marketer should focus on one group of customers at a time, using each group as a base for marketing to the next group. The most difficult step is making the transition between visionaries (early adopters) and pragmatists (early majority).”
> > 
> > Do we all agree that Ada has never quite crossed the chasm (although it almost did during the late 1980s)?  How can Ada cross the chasm?
> > 
> > How will Ada use one base of programmers/software-engineers as a basis to move onto convincing another group of programmers/software-engineers of Ada's advantages?  Or is the purpose of Ada to preach to its current choir without trying to fill the pews with new parishioners?
> 
> gonga.com seems the 1 way
> I mean coding web mobiel in 1 swoop sounds awesome

This brings up a related topic:  What are all the ways that Ada's GNOGA at http://Gnoga.com is better than, say, C++'s Wt (pronounced Witty*) at http://WebToolkit.eu/wt?  I'll start:
1) GNOGA is written in Ada instead of C++.
2) GNOGA is licensed as GPLv3 with Runtime Exception, as opposed to Wt's GPLv2 (apparently without any variant of the Runtime Exception).  (It isn't clear to me at all what is and is not a ‘distribution’ of derivative works** of a Wt website under GPLv2, and thus who is entitled to receive the source code of your [entire?] Wt-based website.  Matters are much much clearer with GNOGA's Runtime Exception, I think:  it sure looks like you can proprietarily own your GNOGA-based website's software, correct?)

* analogous to Qt's cute or cutie (or SQL's sequel, for that matter)

** Are WWW-browser-based possessors of Javascript generated & served by Wt allowed to request source code to your Wt-based WWWsite under GPLv2-without-Runtime-Exception?  If a Wt-based WWWsite is hosted on a server that you do not own (e.g., the cloud), can the hosting provider request source code to your Wt-based WWWsite under GPLv2-without-Runtime-Exception?  Once someone has requested & received source code to your Wt-based website, are they then allowed under software freedom to redistribute your [entire?] WWWsite's source code?  (These questions seem less likely under GNOGA's licensing.)

Re: How is Ada's GNOGA better than C++'s Wt?

[Simon Wright]

"Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net> writes:

> From over on the lengthy How-to-get-Ada-to-”cross-the-chasm” posting,
> but this topic deserves its own top-level posting:

> This brings up a related topic: What are all the ways that Ada's GNOGA
> at http://Gnoga.com is better than, say, C++'s Wt (pronounced Witty*)
> at http://WebToolkit.eu/wt?  I'll start:
> 1) GNOGA is written in Ada instead of C++.
> 2) GNOGA is licensed as GPLv3 with Runtime Exception, as opposed to
> Wt's GPLv2 (apparently without any variant of the Runtime Exception).
> (It isn't clear to me at all what is and is not a ‘distribution’ of
> derivative works** of a Wt website under GPLv2, and thus who is
> entitled to receive the source code of your [entire?] Wt-based
> website.  Matters are much much clearer with GNOGA's Runtime
> Exception, I think: it sure looks like you can proprietarily own your
> GNOGA-based website's software, correct?)
>
> * analogous to Qt's cute or cutie (or SQL's sequel, for that matter)
>
> ** Are WWW-browser-based possessors of Javascript generated & served
> by Wt allowed to request source code to your Wt-based WWWsite under
> GPLv2-without-Runtime-Exception?  If a Wt-based WWWsite is hosted on a
> server that you do not own (e.g., the cloud), can the hosting provider
> request source code to your Wt-based WWWsite under
> GPLv2-without-Runtime-Exception?  Once someone has requested &
> received source code to your Wt-based website, are they then allowed
> under software freedom to redistribute your [entire?] WWWsite's source
> code?  (These questions seem less likely under GNOGA's licensing.)

I suppose one could consider the Affero licence:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

Though it's a tad hard to spot the difference

Re: How is Ada's GNOGA better than C++'s Wt?

[Jere]

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 3:01:49 PM UTC-4, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> This brings up a related topic:  What are all the ways that Ada's GNOGA at http://Gnoga.com is better than, say, C++'s Wt (pronounced Witty*) at http://WebToolkit.eu/wt?  I'll start:

I don't know others feelings on the topic, but one of the things I really
like about Gnoga is that it is a concurrent GUI framework.  Every event
has its own thread, so you are free to block as needed when needed.
I don't know Wt well enough to say 100% it isn't similar, but everything
that I have read on it puts the GUI operations in a single thread.  I know
it isn't a huge thing, but sometimes the little things make a difference.