Re: GWindows and a future home for it

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org>]

"AndreS" <username.avsaway@provider.hotmail.com> writes:

> I have been doing a lot of testing with the early releases of GWindows. The
> reason why I started with GWindows was the way CLAW is designed. GWindows
> is much closer to the WIndows API.

Could you comment more on that? Both seem like a pretty thick binding
to me. Claw has one Ada task that runs all the GUI stuff, but that's a
good idea anyway.

> Another advantage of GWindows is that is GNU and not commercial like
> CLAW.

If you mean CLAW is not GMGPL, that's now changed, as Randy said. As
for "commercial", the fact that Randy has customers willing to pay for
support for CLAW and related products is a plus, in my mind. GNAT is a
"commercial" compiler; that's why it is still around, and why it is so
good. 

> So my vote is for GWindows.

I hope you consider the points above, and browse the CLAW web site for
more info on the full CLAW. The more people we get behind one Windows
binding, the better.

> When David Botton gives up the support of GWindows, 

He has effectively done so; no one is able to contact him.

> I will volunteer to be one of the engineers in the team to solve
> problems and implement extentions (I am already using some
> extentions in my own private version of GWindows).

Good.

> The best way to create a community on GWindows is probably SourgeForce. I
> think I can overcome the CVS problem.

Yes, that is the plan.

> By the way, did somebody already try to contact David Botton on this
> issue?

Yes. See the beginnings of this thread.

-- 
-- Stephe