>From: "David J.A. Koogler" <[log in to unmask]>
>Having worked with Windows starting with version 1.06 to the present,
>I have to second Randy's comments. The documentation is adequate if you
>know exactly what you have to do and only need to know details such as
>parameter ordering and values. The SDK presents a microscopic view of
>Windows. It does not present the big picture of how Windows actually
Yes, but Borland Delphi changed the situation significantly. Interesting
thing is that the former key person in the Delphi development now is named
as a key person in the C# (and possibly VS.NET as a whole) development.
Microsoft has some good experience, being already successful with taking
Cutler (who leads Windows NT development in Microsoft) from DEC where he
succeeded with RSX-11 and VMS.
As for the standards... A standard is a kind of interface -- between a
vendor and a user. Therefore its quality should be measured relative to the
intended (or real) user audience. What is good for typical Ada programmer
may be bad for a typical Windows programmer, and vice versa. Note, that I speak
about _typical_, majority etc., and not about "best", "worst" etc. So:
>The key to engineering is the ability to predict.
Perhaps. But evidently, majority of Windows programmers cannot predict almost
anything, regardless of their tools, languages etc. They are common people
with little sense of prediction of anything that deviates from an everyday
experience. It means that in fact they are not and can not be programmers at
all in the old, pre-computer essense of this word.
Sorry, that thread was too long and mostly annoying indeed. Some foe of
Ada may find it useful as demonstration of the Ada bad sides.
Alexander Kopilovitch [log in to unmask]