Re: why not

["Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net>]

minyard@acm.org wrote:
> 
> Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> 
> > In article <Bggx7.314$KN5.148429887@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Pat Rogers
> > says...
> > >
> > >I propose the Booch Components be that standard.  If there is a better suite
> > >I haven't seen it and I've seen many of them.  However, there may very well
> > >be a better collection of components.  Let's discuss them.
> >
> > I agree with the need, and the Booch Components are probably the best available
> > starting point. My first thought was to make this exact same post. However, the
> > current implementation of Booch has not really been designed with real-time
> > needs in mind. For instance, many of the "bounded" structures, which one would
> > naievely assume don't perform dynamic allocations, do in fact perform dynamic
> > allocations, sometimes even during lookups.
> 
> Have you looked at my set of components?  It's at http://adasl.sf.net.
> I was pretty careful to not do do heap stuff in my bounded containers,
> and all the containers have storage-managed versions.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear what people thought of it; I'm pretty sure
> that people use it but I haven't gotten much feedback on it.

Here's some feedback:  I use the ASL components exclusively in all the
Ada software I write for myself, I brought them into a Lockheed Martin
system on which I worked for awhile, and you can be assured they'll be
showing up in another product that will be started in the near future.

Can't say enough good things about Corey's work :-)

I have no problem with the Booch components, and extensively used the
Ada 83 versions at Link Flight Simulation.  The long gestation period of
the Ada 95 versions is why I went looking elsewhere--I needed components
and the specific Booch components weren't available at that time, so I
found and went with the ASL.

Been a satisfied user ever since.

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com