Re: GUI

Re: GUI

[Robert C. Leif]

The existence of Microsoft's licenses is exactly why, I stated to use World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards.  Microsoft has NOT, as far as I have
seen, stated that you cannot import or use types or elements from their
schema for an Office or one of their other products add-on.  It is quite
reasonable that Microsoft would not want you to develop competitive products
based on their intellectual property.  W3C standards are operating system
independent and W3C is making a very strong effort to make sure that they do
not contain proprietary intellectual property.  Therefore, W3C is a better
source of standards than either Microsoft or Sun and much less restrictive
than the Free Software Foundation. 

Bob Leif
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:58:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Subject: Re: GUI was Re: why Ada is so unpopular ?
To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
Message-ID: <bujto2$l3l$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>

Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
:   In fact, a large part of Microsoft's next operating system
: is in XML.

Have you noted the licenses (aka precautionary infringement of patent
threatening letters :) they offer for their XML Schemata?
(Doesn't mean that a common standardised way of declaring your
window's resource file section (and probably more) in XML is
a Bad Thing.)


-- Georg

Re: GUI

[Robert C. Leif]

I am not sure if I am the he referred to below.  However, I wish to be more
explicit and extend what Tom Moran wrote.  Because CLAW is a thick binding,
many if not most of the package specifications are operating system
independent or are capable of being made operating system independent.  The
Windows resource files could be replaced with XML files.  I would not be
surprised if Microsoft is presently doing this.  In many cases, an
implementation of Scalable Vector Graphics, SVG, could be called in the
package bodies; and obviously SVG or any of the XML languages that have
methods could be implemented in Ada.  This could be one way to host CLAW on
LINUX or other operating systems.

Since XML is NOT a competitor of Ada, there is a good business case for
being complimentary and synergistic.  In most cases, one can provide
identical data-types for XML schema and Ada.  Partnering with XML makes
sense.  Helping a competitor language, such as Java, has the eventual
deleterious effect of detracting from Ada's image as the most reliable
solution for significant software projects.  You do not see one automobile
company advertising that they use parts from a competitor.

As for a GUI with an Ada look and feel, XML has range checking, attributes,
and single inheritance.  XForms already provides range checking by the use
of XML schema and can provide initialized values.  XForms even does simple
math.  If XForms had an interface to Ada, it could run many embedded systems
including the CellFuge(TM, patent pending) that I am trying to build.
 
Bob Leif 

 ----------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:42:52 -0600
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: GUI was Re: why Ada is so unpopular ?
To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
Message-ID: <100r17jsabt5a3a@corp.supernews.com>

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote in
message
news:slrnc0q2fu.7as.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no...
> On 2004-01-20, Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
> > Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote:
> >:> that available from Adobe. This could then serve as a foundation 
> >to
host
> >:> XForms.
> >:
> >: Why would we want to use a library that *only* works on one OS. I
> >: thought the point was a *portable* library.
> >
> > XForms is intended to be not only "portable" but also abstract.
>
> I wasn't talking about xforms. I was commenting on that one could use 
> CLAWS

I think he was talking about the abstract design of CLAW, not the
windows-specific implementation.

Something like it, with the Windows-specific stuff filed off, would make a
very decent basis for a higher-level, portable GUI library. We've looked at
doing that for the sockets portion, and it isn't too hard. It would be
harder, of course, to do it for the rest of it, but by no means impossible.

                   Randy.





------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:12:46 GMT
From: tmoran@acm.org
Subject: Re: GUI was Re: why Ada is so unpopular ?
To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
Message-ID: <2ZfPb.89638$Rc4.463959@attbi_s54>

>Something like it, with the Windows-specific stuff filed off, would 
>make a very decent basis for a higher-level, portable GUI library. 
>We've looked at doing that for the sockets portion, and it isn't too 
>hard. It would be harder, of course, to do it for the rest of it, but by no
means impossible.
  www.adaworld.com  Ada Projects  Internet Protocols has a sockets package
like Claw's but with no Claw dependence and two Windows-specific calls -
WSAStartup and WSACleanup for initial startup and final shutdown.
  Claw.Registry, OTOH, would be bizarre to try to port to an OS with nothing
similar to Windows Registry.