Re: Bases 1.52

[Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>]

Mï¿œrio Amado Alves wrote:

> But you're right in that the formal in 1.51 does not accept abstract
> actuals. However I'm not sure about the usefulness--or even
> legality--of a container of abstract elements. Note the Bases requires
> "value semantics". Abstract types don't have values.

But there child classes have. Nobody just defines an abstract type for the
sake of it. They are allways defined to be derived by concred types. And
they have values which one might like to store inside a container.

>> Besides, Sun did not keep the Java Library small. In fact the Java
>> Library is huge. And Java is more successfull.
>> 
>> Or Python. The Python Library is huge and there are 2641 python project
>> on source forge and ony 67 Ada projects.
> 
> Do you mean the *containers* library?

No. I want to point out that the success of a language depends (partly) on
the size of its standart library.
 
There is a good Article here:

Re: How to get a ￜConventional Ada Libraryￜ (Was: Ideas for Ada 200X)
Von: Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>
Message-ID: <3F61C185.4020005@noplace.com>

Actualy I would advovate a "reference implementation" instead of just a
description of how the library should be done. Sun did it for the java lib
and was successful in doing so.

> As for the library size, the tendency is to recommend a maximum of 50
> lines per package spec. And the Bases requires Vectors, Lists and
> Tables (maps), but leaves open the inclusion of others.

Ok. It is just that I think of a library as a collection of packages. I am
advocation more packages not larger once.

I would like to invite you to read my "containers and garbage collections."
artivle as well.

With Regards

Martin.

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com