Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada

[Corey Minyard <minyard@metronet.com>]

bjw@mirage.iassf.easams.com.au (Brendan WALKER) writes:

> 
> In article <32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr>,
> Steve Jones - JON  <Steve.Jones@eurocontrol.fr> wrote:
> >Michiel Perdeck wrote:
> >> 
> >> I can think of some reasons, can you refute them?
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> 4. Ada is not right for GUI programming.
> >This just isn't right, the project I'm on at the moment has zero lines
> >of C code in it, uses Ada bindings for PEX and X and gets along just as
> >well as the last project where we used C for the GUI.  The only problem
> >is that the bindings aren't as powerful as they could be.  You just have
> >to be smarter.
> 
> Yes but how many of the numerous inexpensive and effective GUI
> development tools generate Ada code automatically? The answer is hardly
> any and the ones that do are *very* expensive and often not as good.
> OK, if you want to write X-windows based GUI's from scratch all the
> time use Ada with X bindings (Yuk!), fine. But the smart players use
> tools to generate the majority of their GUI code automatically, and this
> pushes them towards C++, particularily if they are using an OOD paradigm
> for their overall system design.
> 

Well, XForms supports Ada directly (generates Ada code through a
converter).  It seems to work fine, and XForms is a lot better than
any other GUI framework I have used.  And it is free.

-- 
Corey Minyard               Internet:  minyard@metronet.com
  Work: minyard@nortel.ca       UUCP:  minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com
-- 
Corey Minyard               Internet:  minyard@metronet.com
  Work: minyard@nortel.ca       UUCP:  minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com