Re: GWindows and David Botton

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org>]

David Botton <david@botton.com> writes:

> I would join, but regardless of direction, I and others plan on
> continuing development of GWindows, GNATCOM and GNAVI (the Delphi like
> GUI builder I had started).
> 
> I would suggest looking at the GMGPL CLAW page on AdaPower
> http://www.adapower.com/claw/ as there is some good materials for a
> CLAW based startup if you decide that direction, ie.
> 	* Very good examples of using CLAW (Moran)
> 	* An example of how to put an ActiveX control on to CLAW
> windows (Myself)

There was a distinct feeling that the Ada community in general would
benefit from going forward with only _one_ thick Windows binding,
because that would enhance the level of support for that binding (both
in terms of user experience and developers fixing problems and adding
features). 
 
> * There is already a decent install base of GWindows including use in
> traditional and GPL'd apps (of course, I assume in terms of users,
> CLAW has a vastly larger base)

Ok, so it makes more sense to proceed with CLAW as a base.

> * GWindows for the most part (but not all) is already a _superset_ of
> CLAW both in design and functionality

Ok, so it won't be hard to merge GWindows into CLAW. 

Although I agree with Randy; "superset" is not a proper description here.

> * Where GMGPL CLAW has more functionality, the code can easily be
> integrated in to GWindows

Or vice versa.

> * GWindows ease of use for teaching GUI programming do to model and
> good specs 

I don't get this impression from reading the code. I have not had much
experience in teaching any Ada GUI system to users. But I understand
the CLAW code more easily than the GWindows code, because the CLAW
code has better comments.

> * GWindows shows good Ada design while demonstrating how to be
> practical in design choices instead of Academic, ie. it is "real
> world"

I think CLAW has a better design. But I guess that will always be a
matter of opinion.

> * GWindows ease of use for programming both very small and very
> large systems

I don't see that as much different for CLAW. Perhaps this is a case of
"it's easier to program in a system I know".

> * GWindows integration of COM/DCOM/ActiveX/.NET using all Ada, no
> C/C++ or MFC code needed (as in ObjectAda or older GWindows
> releases)

That's _not_ GWindows, that's GNATCOM. As we have already established,
CLAW can easily take advantage of that as well. Please be consistent
in this discussion!

> * GWindows integration of Database support

That is a point. It looks easy to port to CLAW.

> * GWindows design for future integration in to a Delphi like
> environment

It would be interesting to hear how CLAW lacks in this department.

> * GWindows offers UNICODE API support out of the box making it a
> better choice for 64 Bit Windows, NT, 2000, XP and Longhorn - ie. the
> ANSI API (and thus CLAW, the thin Win32Ada binding, GWindows ANSI
> build, etc) should only be used where Win9X/ME is a must (and then one
> should offer both binaries).

Hmm. I guess I haven't looked at the Unicode issue in CLAW. Clearly it
could be added.

> * GWindows can be used for windows CE programming as well if a cross
> compiler was available

What prevents CLAW from doing that? Although I don't rank this high on
a list of requirements.

> * GWindows has always been MGPL'd 

As CLAW is now (or will be soon, if we agree to start a community
project with it).

> and as such has always been very much alive even if I was not :-)

Well, that's not true. That's exactly why this whole discussion got
started; there was no active support for GWindows, and we were
discussing the best way to start a support group.

> * I have and attachment to the FSF's GNU/GPL philosophy and practice
> and want to support such projects. (Despite being a Mr. Windows in the
> Ada world, All of my own work and the majority of programming I do is
> on Linux, Darwin and Mac OS X. GWindows was created to advocate Ada
> and GPL/MGPL _not_ Windows, somehow that point always gets lost in the
> sauce....)

Me too, but I'm not sure how it applies here. Once CLAW becomes
GMGPL, it meets the same philosophical goals.
 
> The only reason I noticed for not supporting GWindows as the GNU Ada
> standard was my absences. 

Actually, we are not talking about a GNU standard. I doubt the Gnu
Project would be interested in anything tightly bound to Windows.

We are talking about an Ada community standard.

> I'd like to point out a few things:
> 
> * Despite my personal absence there has been continued development of
> GWindows by others (although true, I haven't integrated them in to the
> base yet, but they are available)

Yes. And those others started a discussion on the best way to move
forward. Some agreed that a GMGPL'd CLAW was the best starting point.

> * There hasn't been much need of support and there has been some peer
> support from others on the GNAVI-List until it broke a few months ago
> (now fixed)

"need" is in the eye of the users. "need" was expressed here.

> * More than one set of GMGPL'd professional extensions has been made

I'm not clear how this is relevant.

> * The GMGPL Claw version has been around for some time now yet no one
> pushed to extend it, I expect that anything less than a full GMGPL
> version of CLAW will mean the same lethargic response

I personally didn't work with CLAW because it was not GMGPL. Making it
GMGPL changes that.

> * CLAW, the framework, hasn't really been updated/extended per se.

How is this relevant? If it's good, it's good.

> (Note the web page is older than that of GWindows) 

My Robin's Card's page is older than either. It still works, and is a
good card game. What's the point?

> that despite the availability of many of my tools and some examples
> that could have been used with out compromising lic.,etc. (as
> pointed out by others) to give CLAW additional support where
> GWindows was stronger.

There could be many reasons why your code was not added to CLAW; lack
of customer demand, for one. Lack of clear title, for another; GMGPL
is not enough when it comes to legal issues. You must also have clear
ownership, proof that the GMGPL license actually applies. 

But this actually illustrates the point that it would be better for
the Ada community if there is only one thick Windows binding. Then we
wouldn't have useful code that is not being used.

> My 2 cents, you would be better off pushing forward with GWindows
> (as GWindows can't see why a name change, etc. is needed either,
> GWindows the (M)GPL'd//GNAT Windows binding for Ada).

CLAW has a goal of compiler independence; that's actually a point in its
favor that I've forgotten to mention.

-- 
-- Stephe