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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,54c513170bafd693 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Marin D. Condic" Subject: Re: Desirability of C++ Date: 2000/05/03 Message-ID: <39103CBE.7D5B9F4E@quadruscorp.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 618652894 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <390DEC7F.9429C82C@online.no> <390E2A20.B647D0D6@maths.unine.ch> <8em8mb$evd$1@wanadoo.fr> <390EEF24.BD36AA24@maths.unine.ch> <8eonmi$e4q$2@wanadoo.fr> Organization: Quadrus Corporation X-Sender: "Marin D. Condic" (Unverified) X-Server-Date: 3 May 2000 11:53:11 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-03T11:53:11+00:00 List-Id: Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > The difficult point is to what extent should libraries go to the standard. > In 83, the line of the party was that there was no need to put libraries > that could easily be written by the user; that was the reason for not having > complex types, for example. In 95, it was recognized that this lead too > often to people rewriting all the time the same modules with slightly > different interfaces, and the borderline was moved to include more > libraries - but certainly not all libraries that could be useful, or even > desirable. > I can understand the reasons for arguing that the standard should not include libraries that are not "language" issues. Obviously the hard-core end of the spectrum which wanted few/no libraries is no longer in vogue with Ada95 specifying many new libraies. It would seem to me that there might be some big advantages (for the language, at least, if not for vendors) to letting the pendulum swing further in the other direction. Why not specify even more libraries than are presently available so long as they are optional annexes? I don't think that machine dependent stuff should be included since that is a moving target. But, for example, what would be wrong with making some specs for various data structures, math domains, etc., where the standard is not requiring implementation - just defining a complying interface. This would make the language more useful and perhaps broaden its appeal. Standards clearly work against the vendor's immediate interests because they narrow the ability to create product distinction and can create extra work for little perceived return. However, if they expand the market in general, everybody gets a bigger piece of the pie. -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "I'd trade it all for just a little more" -- Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10] ======================================================================