Re: Standard Library Interest?

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

O.K. Maybe we have a difference of opinion, but that's all right. I'm 
willing to be persuaded, but I think that *some* scheme for a library is 
a good thing. How would you address the concern that if you make it part 
of the standard, it is etched in stone and you can't do anything about 
adding to it or fixing it for ten years? How would you create a climate 
wherein a developer can count on getting *something* but isn't frozen 
out of new developments, good ideas, enhancements, etc.?

You can have an absolute standard that is good for stability or you can 
have a totally fluid environment that reacts quickly to changes. 
Somewhere in the middle should be a useful compromise.

MDC


Martin Dowie wrote:
> 
> Secondary standards have already been tried and I don't think they
> have been very successful, e.g. ISO/IEC 13813.
> 
> It seems that the Ada community isn't active enough to go and root
> out and use other things if it's not in the RM, it doesn't exist!
> 
> I hope that the APIWG can get some momentum behind it and we
> need to promote it more in cla.
> 
> Just my $0.02
> 
> 
> 


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