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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,877ba3d67e73c6c3 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-14 01:21:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!unlisys!news.snafu.de!boavista!nobody From: Michael Erdmann Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:01:35 +0200 Organization: [Posted via] Inter.net Germany GmbH Message-ID: <3CB9375F.8040904@snafu.de> References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB77A6B.5090504@snafu.de> <184076622a7c648f157c56e417bd86d4.48257@mygate.mailgate.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: tc01-n71-137.de.inter.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 X-Accept-Language: en-us Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22500 misc.misc:6295 Date: 2002-04-14T10:01:35+02:00 List-Id: Kent Paul Dolan wrote: > "Michael Erdmann" wrote: > >>Kent Paul Dolan wrote: >> > >>>The love of doing things one rigid way, with all decisions handed down >>>from above, ran square into the software development community, which is >>>used to speedy and flexible growth in its tools. >>> > >>This has nothing to do with the DoD. >> > > To the contrary, rigid, top down command structure with limited upwards > feedback is quintessentially a military organization model. No business > could long survive with a similarly rigid hierarchy. > I am not so mutch experienced with the DoD, but to me it sounds like what you can often encounter in large companies and they are still dominating the market without alwys beeing always the technical leader in there domain. >>>"Progress, keeping up with community standards, is for other people!" >>> > >>I dont like the attitude you are showing here. I have worked >>on standarisation of telecomminucation protocols and i can assure >>you that progress is possible with a defined development process, >>It depends largely on the good will of the audience but it works! >> > > How well I know; there are three ANSI X3H3 standards (GKS, CGM, VDI) > containing my 4.5 years of contributions. I know what is possible, I > don't see the Ada community following ANSI's most important guideline: > standards shall incorporate current best practice. This isn't a > standards process problem, this is explicitly an Ada community problem. > > >>>At least when I yelled at the Fortran standards folks back in 1987 or >>>so, they responded, and arguably saved their language from the dust-bin >>>as a result. Here, the outlook is not so rosy. >>> > >>Any how i cant seeing your point what should be done with Ada? >> > > It should follow the Fortran standards choice (for Fortran 90) of > continuing to incorporate programming community best practice, rather > than crawling off in a corner and becoming a programming language no new > graduate wants to touch because none of the new stuff to make > programming easier learned in school exists in the language. This is where i completly agree, specially the predefined packages have to updated dramatically. The langauge is still better then most of the currently commonly used languages. >>Thrown away because the DoD has has initiated it??!!!! >> > > No, I sign my name "LCDR, Retired" when I care to bother; I don't have > any particular bone to pick with the military. DoD has abandoned Ada, > that is the problem. The head has been cut off, the body continues to > twitch. Ada needs a new mandate, some sense of direction so it doesn't > just continue to march in place, and I don't see it happening. This is exaclty the impression i have my self. So i was wondering if Ada could take a new direction, when the open source communitiy is more directly involved by establishing a public process in order to enhance the predefined libraries, and may be later, to make an attempt to get these things into ISO etc.. I am realy wondering if good place to start would be the AIC? Regards M.Erdmann