Re: Standard Library Interest?

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

Great. I agree that existing packages might make a good place to start 
looking at things that should be there. It might even make a great place 
to start with a reference implementation. Two things: I'd like a 
standard, consistent, built-on-common-substrate, orthogonal library and 
grabbing a dozen different things off the Internet probably isn't going 
to do that. I'd also like to see you get some kind of acceptance by the 
folks that matter that they are going to use some stuff currently 
available off the Internet. Chances are they won't buy it.

I'm not against existing software. I just think its hard to pull 
existing stuff together into a consistent library without significant 
rework and history tends to indicate that it won't get accepted. Solve 
those problems and you've got something there.

MDC



Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> 
> Sure, but I think that these are at least starting points. I don't see
> the reason for rewriting a lot of software just for the exercise if one
> can adopt already existing software and mould it into what one wants.
> 
> At any rate the GNAT stuff is more or less standard for me.
> 
> Preben


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