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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: thick bindings, was Re: Vulkan is here! Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:21:23 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: ru/enNNyVkms/PPjid3aKA.user.gioia.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:29541 Date: 2016-02-19T04:21:23+00:00 List-Id: > p.s: I dont get it why people don't systematically make a thin binding, > standalone, and then undertake any other Ada-ized layer over it > separately. I hate extracting stuff from others "wool ball". A thick binding, like any API, creates an abstraction intended to be easier and safer to program than coding at a lower level. If you don't like the abstraction, don't use it - it's straightforward to code the necessary lower level thin binding instead. A thick binding makes many assumptions about the state of the machine and coding at the thin binding level likely makes those invalid. Luring the programmer into trying to code at two different abstraction levels at the same time is not a kindness.