GUI was Re: why Ada is so unpopular ?

["Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>]

Since the subject of this discussion is GUI's, I changed the subject.  Since
we lack both the resources and probably the human engineering expertise to
develop a GUI, instead of inventing a new GUI for Ada; why not use a
language neutral technology?  XML has many sublanguages that are
appropriate.  In fact, it would be possible to use presently existing
technology like GtkAda or better yet CLAW to create the simplest version of
Scalable Vector Graphics or a thick binding to an existing version, such as
that available from Adobe. This could then serve as a foundation to host
XForms. 

In fact by using XML schemas and Ada packages that have identical
data-types, one might have two versions of the same GUI.  The first would be
an XML version powered as much as possible by Ada and the second would be an
Ada version with minimal code in other languages.  In short, the simplest
approach is to use the designs and data-types from the World Wide Web
Consortium, www.w3.org

If successful, this might even increase the popularity of Ada.  Ada is now
worse than unpopular; most of the programming community does not realize
that it exists; and the others think that Ada is only useful for military
projects.  Parenthetically, the real reason Ada is not popular is that we do
not have a hero who has become filthy rich using it. 

Bob Leif
-----------------------------------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:28:30 GMT
From: Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>
Subject: Re: why ada is so unpopular ?
To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
Message-ID: <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> Well if you look at Java you see that the GUI isn't the same in all
> platforms and IMHO the GUI is butt-ugly.
> 
Java's GUI may or may not be butt-ugly. But one thing it is: It's 
_Java's_ GUI and as it evolves, Java users pretty much get full access 
to whatever new features are added without having to wait for some 
binding to catch up.


> The only benifit of a special Ada GUI would be portability and not
> having to use C library.
> 

Portability would be one thing, but not the only thing. "Product 
Distinction" would be another: An Ada GUI could go its own way and do 
things "The Ada Way" from the programmer's perspective and might even 
provide a unique "Look & Feel" to Ada apps. (People might then actually 
*care* that their apps were done with Ada, eh?) You'd also benefit from 
the fact that (as observed above for Java) it would be _Ada's_ GUI and 
there would be no waiting around for some binding to catch up. It goes 
its own direction, develops its own look-and-feel and might start 
developing features that user's of other languages would wish *they* had 
available to them. (Hint: Switch to Ada and you can have them.)

I've tinkered with GtkAda and - while it is a good and useful thing - I 
can observe that there seem to be some features that Gtk has (under 
Gnome?) that are simply not available through GtkAda. One might want to 
use those features - but its either roll your own, wait for GtkAda to 
catch up or go use C/C++ like the entire rest of the world does. What do 
you suppose most programmers do? (Hint: Look at the relative popularity 
of C/C++ to that of Ada.)

This is always the problem that Ada has with bindings, etc. It's playing 
the "Me Too!!!!" catch-up game. The best you can hope for then is to 
come in second-place. That's why Ada ought to be developing a library of 
its own to supply a GUI and the other things that seem to come along for 
the ride with C++ or Java.

MDC