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: 103376,38fc011071df5a27 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-31 15:09:48 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: Marin David Condic Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 18:09:43 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: <3ED92827.7050808@noplace.com> References: <6a90b886.0305262344.1d558079@posting.google.com> <3ED4A94C.2020501@noplace.com> <3ED6A852.75AC0133@adaworks.com> <3ED74ED3.4020505@noplace.com> <3ED7C8C5.3070902@cogeco.ca> <3ED826BB.9010509@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.b5.f5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 31 May 2003 22:09:47 GMT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38246 Date: 2003-05-31T22:09:47+00:00 List-Id: O.K. Now, should they be static or dynamic allocation? ;-) You see the point? We can keep specifying "A vs B" design constraints and the answer "A" will make the "B" crowd unhappy, "B" makes the "A" crowd unhappy and "Both" will double the implementation work, create endless confusion for the user, increases the cost of support, etc. The end result? We get "Neither". Look at it this way: If it was Microsoft that was building it, you'd get some design team together, tell them "This is what Marketing says people want..." and get them to pick one (that would be "1" with a capital "1") design and go off and build it. You then bundle it into everything you sell, advertise to the developer community that "This is all the rage and the best answer to everything" and then sit back and watch it make you money. Hence, MSVC++ has a de facto "standard" library chock full of all sorts of wonderful stuff that makes development get done faster and Ada stands on the sidelines saying "Well you can always go build your own or use one of several dozen packages you can go find on the Internet somewhere or go write bindings to the MFC library...." Ada can't possibly please every conceivable user, so it has to pick a direction and go there. If you had some sort of vendor-agreed-to forum that was willing to say "Our marketing indicates that if we had a library containing X and Y and Z done within design constraints A and B and C, our customers would like that. So here's your requirements. Go build something that looks like that." you might get a usable result. Nobody has the deep pockets to be able to say "Lets build one of everything and let the market decide." Even if you did, it would only be confusing for the end user and they'd retreat to what they know in order to achieve freedom from choice. MDC Simon Wright wrote: > Marin David Condic writes: > > >> Should a Standard Ada >>Container Library be based on generics or based on tagged types? Let's >>start that debate here and see how far it goes! (Less filling! Tastes >>great!!!) > > > Only one possible answer there - BOTH!! (which of course is what the > BCs do, and is therefore a Good Thing). -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -- Voltaire ======================================================================