Re: Ideas for Ada 200X (GNAT.IO_Aux.Get_Line)

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Marin David Condic wrote:
...
> Trying to incorporate every possible good idea into the language 
> standard is just not going to work. Providing some kind of forum whereby 
> the vendors and other vested interests can come up with extensions to 
> the language's capabilities that are not part of the formal standard 
> would be a good route to go because it would allow for rapid reaction to 
> changing circumstances. We just don't seem to see much interest in doing 
> something like that coming from the vendors. Without them, it fails.
> 
> MDC

While there are undoubtedly some language issues being worked out (judging
by the number of AIs at least), for my part, I think the best bang for
the buck for Ada0Y effort is in its standard library support improvement.
This will be contraversial to the embedded crowd, but important none
the less.

Sure there are some language "warts" that get in the way from time to
time. But for most of my experience in the language, the wall I keep hitting
is the lack of library/binding support for things that are taken for
granted everywhere else (sockets is one example). It is not the language
that discourages so much, but the number of things that you end up
having to DO YOURSELF. This re-invent the wheel every time thing
needs to go away.

If you have to blaze trails for mundane things, then surely this
discourages many people that lack the intenstinal fortitude to
continue.  I would strongly encourage that the "standard library"
be greatly expanded for Ada0Y, to eliminate this type of
uphill battle for the masses. For GENERAL use of Ada, this is
essential.

Another example: Include a standard version of GNAT.IO_Aux.Get_Line
as part of Ada.Text_IO for Ada0Y. Why should people have to keep
rolling their own, or relying on GNAT code for this?

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg