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: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-30 06:02:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!xmission!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-maxim!news-in-maxim.spamkiller.net!news.he.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F797EDE.9000102@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? References: <1064527575.648809@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F739C1D.4030907@attbi.com> <3F78E850.8010401@comcast.net> <3F797748.3000203@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:02:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.26.251 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1064926953 209.165.26.251 (Tue, 30 Sep 2003 06:02:33 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 06:02:33 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11 Date: 2003-09-30T13:02:33+00:00 List-Id: Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > But the programming practices of others may differ. Efficiency concerns > may have different parameters in other environments. > That's why I was asking if anybody else was using it. For me, I go either String (efficiency/determinism) or Unbounded_String (convenience). I don't know if perhaps there is a whole cult following out there for Bounded_String. > > No ! The meaning of a conventional library should be something that will > stay available in perpetuity. Otherwise it is just like any other library > that may or may not be present. Blasphemy! :-) A huge advantage of NOT insisting that something in a library remain there in perpetuity is *PRECISELY* because then it becomes no different than the ARM. You'd have a TEN YEAR cycle and endless reviews and huge validation requirements all over again - just in a different context. You *WANT* the fluidity of being able to say "Here's a new release that fixes some of the dumb ideas we had in the last one..." Oh sure, you'd probably do beta releases to some subset of customers and get some feedback on what was in there, etc. You wouldn't yank a package without having good reasons and hopefully you'd do so before making a "general release". But if you can never get some stupid idea out of the library, then you've lost one of the big advantages of having one outside of the standard. If it required persistence, people would quickly start insisting on all the due diligence you see going into the ARM. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ======================================================================