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!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Alejandro R. Mosteo" <alejandro@mosteo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: thick bindings, was Re: Vulkan is here!
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:38:12 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <na7cni$drc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <a04d93e9-31c1-4e2a-b21f-abd82b5123e3@googlegroups.com>
 <na6582$20u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <66c5617d-49e6-40eb-9341-31c6664b1f6c@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:35:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="b87243b686c85705f1a2be145187d2a5";
	logging-data="14188"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mmp6IAIrLU7Ydg7+R3xCB"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.1
In-Reply-To: <66c5617d-49e6-40eb-9341-31c6664b1f6c@googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cmmLO7Yc3dU8KBIKu9tNrq5TWoI=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:29549
Date: 2016-02-19T16:38:12+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.