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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-16 20:24:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!yellow.newsread.com!bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed0.news.atl.earthlink.net!news.atl.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:25:10 -0700 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3CBCEB15.E104D1F5@adaworks.com> References: <3CB94312.5040802@snafu.de> <4519e058.0204150645.62003096@posting.google.com> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 41.b2.73.f5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 17 Apr 2002 03:23:36 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22629 Date: 2002-04-17T03:23:36+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:... > > As Randy Brukardt noted the other day, the original idea for Claw "was to > > create a de facto standard, make a subset freely available, and eventually > > put the binding into the public domain to be a standard." But it didn't > > happen. Recently someone complained that Claw didn't currently support > > several features he needs. Nobody, to my knowledge, has added support for > > X to Claw, but multiple people have created alternative Windows bindings, > > none of which has become a standard, and none of which supports the > > I would submit that this is because the "release it to the public > domain" step was never followed through on. If they had done that > first, instead of planning on doing it last, things might have been > different. And who was going to pay Randy and RR Software for their effort in developing CLAW? It is all well and good to want free software, but someone, somewhere needs to pay for it. One reason we don't see more bindings to more environments for Ada is the widespread reluctance of people to commit resources when there is no financial benefit. Even GNAT will disappear if ACT discovers there is no financial reward in supporting it. Tom Moran is right when he complains that so many have spent so much energy creating partial implementations that discourage the use of CLAW instead of getting on board and adding to its already powerful set of capabilities. I suspect Randy would not turn down any offer of help in developing additional packages to extend the CLAW software. Richard Riehle