Re: Provisional Standards was RE: Ada.Networks.Sockets hierarchy (Provisional Standard?)

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
> Agreed that the end result is to gain general acceptance, and this
> of course includes the vendors.  Do we need this acceptance a priori?
> 
I don't think you need their a priori acceptance of anything produced, 
but you need some acceptance of the notion that some kind of committee 
or organization is going to be out there producing something that they 
are expected to accept or endorse in some manner. Otherwise, they are 
likely to simply wait to see if there is some market demand that they 
bundle this into their compilers in some way. Then you're back to 
exactly where we are at with things like the Booch components or a dozen 
other decent container libraries. Everybody wanting a "standard" 
container library and no concensus as to which of a dozen available ones 
it should be. The vendors have to get out front and lead here.



> I personally don't think so, and I think it would be difficult to do
> so until there is something to present. We need more than an egg,
> and something short of a chicken to get there ;-)
> 
If you had the vendors and/or the ARG and/or other interested players 
willing to say "Look, we've got a library over here that might make a 
good start and we''re willing to expand on that in some way..." then 
maybe you can make that work. I'm not suggesting at this point that they 
have to sign up to either a) accept without review anything produced or 
b) shell out several million to build it. I'm suggesting that there be 
some kind of informal understanding that they at least accept the idea 
of having some group assemble something like a provisional standard 
library that they would adopt and ship with their compilers. (Or at 
least point to and call it "Ada") Get a gentleman's agreement that this 
is a concept they *might* be willing to sign up for should an acceptable 
product be built and then maybe you can get somewhere.


> 
> This statement (by itself) is just negative thinking. What are the

I'm only negative about an approach that doesn't include the Keepers Of 
The Ada Standard in on the deal. If they are a priori against it, it 
fails. If they are indiferent to it, it fails. The only possibility of 
success is if the library becomes such a universally accepted thing 
without them that they are forced to deal with it. If that was likely, 
why hasn't it happened with one of the already existing container libraries?



> 
> That's great, and I think there are a number of others that will
> do the same. In fact, if the project gets enough momentum, I am
> sure that even more will become involved at some level or another.
> 
Such volunteer efforts have been started in the past. They tend to 
fizzle. I'm not saying it *can't* work - just that it hasn't. Perhaps 
there is a better approach than a purely voluntary, labor of love, 
effort? I think so. We could discuss it off line if you like & maybe 
formulate some ideas together.



> 
> Why? Linux was a toy in the beginning. If it stays as a toy, then
> this indicates that the interest in it has languished for some
> reason or another. Not necessarily because that the idea itself
> was flawed.
> 
For every "Linux" you can point to, I can point to probably several 
thousand fizzled efforts that have never got beyond being amusing toys. 
You might get a nice, solid container library out of it, but that is a 
relatively smallish sort of "toy". A *real* library ought to encompass a 
rather large range of topics (I have ideas on that as well) and it 
quickly becomes something bigger than what could be built and maintained 
by a bunch of part-time volunteers. Or at least unlikely to be built by 
volunteers and you'd get a hodgepodge of cobbled-together pieces lacking 
any consistent "theme" and you'd have uncertain maintenance & support. 
Realistically, I think this needs to be done (or at least picked up by) 
some organized, funded body - and there are ways to do that without 
spending a fortune.


> 
> Money always helps, no question about it. But a vast amount of
> software has been contributed without this requirement. If we want
> a sourced-based UNIX, then things like FreeBSD and Linux are the
> result. If we _want_ a Ada network library, we _can_ do it without
> $upport, if we want to.  I am not saying that we should turn away
> support, however.
> 

Why not try to find some support? I think if there is money behind it, 
it increases the probability of success dramatically.



> 
> Perhaps yourself and Bob Leif and I should discuss some ideas offline.
> I have also received a couple of other quiet notices of interest by
> email. Let's keep an open mind about how we get there, and try to
> determine the next steps.  Test, debug and reiterate until we
> succeed. ;-)

Drop me an e-mail. See my garbled address below. Maybe we can formulate 
some ideas off line.

MDC



-- 
======================================================================
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
======================================================================