Re: The pace of change (was Proving Correctness (was Java Portability))

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com>]

Pascal Obry wrote:
> "nicolas" <n.brunot@cadwin.com> writes:
> > "Mike@xx" <Mike_member@newsguy.com> a �crit dans le message news:
> > 9klokd0nif@drn.newsguy.com...
> > > The Ada standard library development model is not up to the modern times.
> > >
> > > Look at how Sun manages Java. They have reqular releases of an updated
> > > Java (mostly in the standard libraries). This is how Ada should work. Ada
> > > standard libraries should be updated with more packages all the time.
> 
> I've never seen libraries updating itself right :) ? So who should do
> the job ? This is the real question.
> 
> > >
> > Thanks a lot ... I'd like to hear that kind of things more often
> > I don't understand how Ada could stay up-to-date with one revision of
> > standard libraries in 18 years ...
...snip...
> I agree that Ada is changing slowly compared to Java, but it stays under
> control and well designed. I don't think you can play on both sides.

In fact, if your "libraries" keep undergoing "rapid change" as Nicolas
suggested it should (whatever "keep up to date" suggests here), it then 
becomes a bigger problem to build any "permanance" into
developed applications. This is one reason, I'll not invest time in 
writing for Microsoft -- it just keeps churning and churning, and all 
microsoft based software becomes out of date all too quickly. That is
a bad investment of my premium time.

UNIces at least have some relative form of stability, among other
advantages.

The same (MS problem) holds for Java-- it continues to churn with
change. How can you write Open Source software without being fully 
dedicated to keeping up with the change?

I personally like to "WRAMO" -- that is, "Write Once, And Move On"

I don't want to spend the rest of my life in maintenance mode on a few
given projects. Ada combined with UNIX, provides a good stable combination,
where my "maintenance" will be minimal. This allows _me_ to move onto
new projects, while requiring minimal maintenance on previously 
released projects.

If being up-to-date requires "additions", then fine. They don't necessarily
have to be part of a standard to be useful (though standards are good).
As has been previously mentioned, the GNAT packages are one such example.

Therefore, there is nothing preventing you from using these "up to date" 
packages, which can include XML and anything else you can dream up. Of
course, if these new packages "evolve a lot", you'll be paying the piper
of change again. This mode of operating at least gives you a choice.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg