Re: thick bindings, was Re: Vulkan is here!

["Alejandro R. Mosteo" <alejandro@mosteo.com>]

On 19/02/16 14:07, Olivier Henley wrote:
> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:21:26 PM UTC-5, tmo...@acm.org wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 1. I understand the goals of a thick binding.
>
> 2. I questioned its architecture.
>
> 3. I answered that previously: It is "nicer" when you assume that every one swears by your coding paradigm (the one forced by the thick layer)... which is, I think, close minded. A standalone thin layer does not prevent anyone else from undertaking a thick layer over it and still retains freedom for others.
>
> 4. It is not THAT straightforward to make a pristine lower level thin binding as both Per Sandberg and Simon Wright have to exchange to clarify possible caveats.

And nowadays the thinnest of bindings should be even easier: 
http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/gem-59/

Not pretty IME though, but can be a start.