Re: Standard Library Interest?

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Also, it might be technically true that the language comes up for 
> revision review on a 5 year cycle, but given that it is almost 2004, 
> we'd have Ada83..Ada95..Ada04 - looks pretty much like 10 years to me, 
> plus or minus a little. So while the review of Ada95 should have started 
> in 2000, it isn't at all realistic to presume that we're going to start 
> the next review cycle in 2005 when we have not yet got Ada0x out the door.

Yes, the intention is to only make significant changes every other 
cycle.  But don't let that trick you into ignoring the fact that the 
standard has changed since 1995.  Get a copy of Technical Corrigendum 1 
(ISO/IEC 8652:1995/COR1:2000, or look at it on line.  Found it: 
http://www.ada-auth.org/ai-files/grab_bag/Corrigendum.html  I think you 
will find that even though this was an official ISO revision of the 
standard in 2000, there is not much in their to get excited about.  (But 
the ARG does anyway, or pretends to. ;-)

> I'm not criticizing the ARG or its efforts or the value of the standard. 
> It definitely *needs* some stability and a long review cycle and careful 
> consideration given to each item included in it and extreme detail 
> outlined to make each item validatable. What I'm saying is that when you 
> want to provide features or functionality that doesn't require a 
> revision of the compiler and you want to react quickly to market 
> demands, the standard is *not* the place to go because it simply takes 
> too long. Hence my appeal to get a library outside of the ARM.

Believe me, I am NOT saying that you shouldn't do exactly that. 
Packages will only get added to the standard if they are available and 
widely used.   So if you want something added, you need to get a version 
out and in use.  Especially if you think that the packages should be in 
the standard.

I am just trying to make clear that there is a normal progression. 
Including something in the standard too soon is wrong, and deciding on 
theorectical grounds that something should never be in the standard is 
just as wrong.  When things like database interfaces are in flux and 
there is no agreement on how it should be done--they don't belong in the 
standard.  The various contending approaches belong in vendor supplied 
packages.  When the user base finds the differences in naming 
conventions more troubling than the differences in approach between the 
implementions, then it is time for standardization.  And throughout this 
process of evolution, users will gripe.  It is their nature.

Seriously, listening to gripes is part of the ARG's job, and there will 
always be gripes.  Our job is to listen to the gripers, and also listen 
to the silence from those who are satisfied with the current situation. 
  Then only make changes that reduce the overall griping level.

Oh, and realize that we are all frustrated language developers.  The fun 
part of the job for all of us is when we do get to commit language 
design.  The restraint we have to intellectualy accept is part of the 
price.  Just look at Tucker's current proposal to change the freezing 
rules for generics to see this tension manifest.  I'm tempted to say 
that every ARG member has said that Tucker's proposal is way to radical, 
then gone ahead and made a different radical proposal of their own. ;-)

-- 
                                                     Robert I. Eachus

"Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the 
goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, 
down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or 
down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair 
of an old motorcycle."  -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle 
Maintenance by Robert Pirsig