Re: Ada package registry?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 03/02/2016 23:11, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Pascal Obry" <pascal@obry.net> wrote in message
> news:1454483747.2785.135.camel@obry.net...
> Le mardi 02 février 2016 à 17:06 -0600, Randy Brukardt a écrit :
>>> I realize that when libraries are bindings on third-party components, the
>>> situation gets more complex. But that also goes against my overall
>>> goal (if possible, write it or get it in Ada, and if not, try to go
>>> without).
>
>> Without OpenSSL
>
> Until very recently, I've never had a need for this (most sites have
> unencrypted access, and nothing I'm doing needs any sort of protected).
>
>> or GNUTLS?
>
> I don't even know what that is.

It is an alternative to OpenSSL. Regardless of the merits of encrypted 
network protocols, the problem is indicative to the weakness of Ada 
community. There is nothing in OpenSSL or GNUTLS that would prevent them 
designed in Ada. Moreover some pioneering encryption work was done in 
Ada. Yet we have to resort to quite ugly C libraries [I maintain GNUTLS 
Ada bindings] for what should have been available in Ada.

>> Without Gtk or Qt?
>
> All my GUI work to date has been on Windows, for which (as I'm sure you
> know) we constructed Claw -- which depends on nothing other than the stuff
> Microsoft includes in the OS (and an Ada compiler). If I wanted to make a
> portable GUI today, I'd use HTML directly for simple systems and most likely
> something like GNOGA for more complex ones. If you're going to compromise
> with a "portable" GUI, might was well use something that really does work
> anywhere (and you get remote access for free).

Well, I don't think browser-based GUI will ever replace native GUI.

>> Without sockets?
>
> Sockets have been part of Windows since Windows 95, and I think part of Unix
> much longer than that. Nothing 3rd-party to use sockets. And of course, I'm
> mostly used Claw Sockets (part of Claw), or the generic version thereof (NC
> Sockets). We of course have an ecosystem of tools and libraries built on top
> of those. (One of the projects I'm working on occassionally in my spare time
> is erasing lingering Window-isms in them and testing them on Linux; once
> done I intend to release the entire set of libraries under the BSD license.)

The problem with external socket libraries is handling "esoteric" stuff 
like socket select, raw sockets, socketCAN etc. External libraries do 
not work well across platforms and are too low-level, e.g.  asynchronous 
socket I/O is not integrated integrated with Ada tasks.

> I realize my background is "build everything from scratch";

It is a solid background.

> On top of which is my paranoid nature: I don't view anything I didn't write
> as truly trustworthy (see the OpenSSL problems for an example of why). But
> that comes at least in part from experience: when you build a fine edifice
> on top of sand, you usually end up with trouble. If that foundation is Ada
> source code, I have tools and knowledge to be able to fix it in an
> emergency. If that foundation is something else, you run the risk of
> watching it all wash away in that situation.

Yes, but that applies to the OS as well. We cannot fix that, but we 
should try to get as much stuff as possible in Ada. Which is why Ada 
community is important.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de