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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6511c3dc6e1155c9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GWindows and David Botton Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:31:22 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: <9g87l018jg6p8q7vi6ttbdvrelt3ohrpfo@4ax.com> <116a1020.0409261357.b937127@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1096288282 8540 134.91.1.34 (27 Sep 2004 12:31:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:31:22 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/800)) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4253 Date: 2004-09-27T12:31:22+00:00 List-Id: Fionn mac Cuimhaill wrote: : On 26 Sep 2004 14:57:54 -0700, mcneills@landcareresearch.co.nz : (Stephen McNeill) wrote: : : ... snip ... :> :>It seems not many enjoy writing documentation... What a shame, I enjoy :>it. :> :>I updated the existing (Botton) documentation for my own use and added :>a reference manual, but I agree that it needs to be substantially :>updated, and preferably overhauled completely. If this project goes :>ahead with some kind of structure, I'd be happy to start working on :>the documentation and reference manual. : : Very good - we should use your improvemenrs as a first step. I hope that Randy Brukardt's and Tom Moran's respective offers (making the rest of CLAW GMGPLed, which, if I understand correctly, will include the media packages) are not deliberately ignored? Or is there some technical profit in not co-ordinating efforts? I guess Ada vendors have customer who do already use CLAW. Will they be attracted to another great effort likely to be very similar to CLAW, and abandon a supported product (CLAW) that already meets their needs? What kind of support can they expect? Conversly, imagine that for a Windows bindings project you had - RR Software's experience in building Windows bindings - CLAW customers' interest in the project if based on CLAW - and possibly other vendors' (and customers') interest in an alternative high level Ada binding. -- Georg