From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,714a8558b02b32bb,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-19 20:12:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: GUI was Re: why Ada is so unpopular ? Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:06:49 -0800 Organization: Newport Instruments Message-ID: Reply-To: rleif@rleif.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1074571628 67480 80.67.180.195 (20 Jan 2004 04:07:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:07:08 +0000 (UTC) To: "Comp. Lang. Ada" Return-Path: X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcPfCs2tEHo749RbQY2l2aZuzutQjQ== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4561 Date: 2004-01-19T20:06:49-08:00 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 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