Re: Standard Library Interest?

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

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
> BTW, I finally received my printed copy of the Ada Letters last
> week. Good work on the article.
> 
Thanks.

Maybe I ought to author something else related to that?

> 
> 
> I know that. Don't be too sensitive ;-)
> 
Sorry. Not "sensitive" - just excitable.

> 
> Apart from standards and the ARG, what about Win32Ada and FLORIST. I
> do believe that _some_ evidence does exist. FLORIST was started outside
> of ACT, though I don't know about the Win32Ada binding.
> 
Except that neither one of those was some sort of "All Volunteer" effort 
divorced from the vendors. Thus demonstrating exactly what I am hoping 
ought to happen. Win32Ada was something that was built (I believe) By 
Tucker Taft who was doing it for Averstar? Softech? 
Somebodyorotherwhowasalsoacompilervendor? It had some buy-in from the 
vendors who were putting out Windows compilers - hence it is a 
semi-standard thing. Florist has some ACT buy-in now and maybe had some 
connection there I'm not aware of. But it (afaik) is not "The Thing" 
with more than ACT, so you're not portable to other vendors. If a couple 
of other vendors were hip to it, then you'd have something there. 
Otherwise, it is no different than had it been named GNAT.Florist.

> 
> 
> How many competing designs where there for the Ada language, before one
> was "accepted"?  For a container library, I think there is room for
> several attempts before getting it "right". After all, Ada programmers
> are much fussier about the quality and the design than in other 
> languages. I
> think one needs to leave room for evolution and experimentation. Eventally,
> an emerging accepted defacto standard is bound to emerge. I think, you
> would agree that we would like it to happen a little sooner, that's
> all!
> 

BIG DIFFERENCE! The ultimate *CUSTOMER* was sponsoring the competition. 
They went off and recruited designers to develop the designs. The 
*customer* said "Here's what I have in mind - show me what your proposal 
is..." What you are suggesting doing is charging off without an 
identifiable customer or an identifiable set of requirements and 
building something with the hope that sooner or later a customer will 
stand up and say "Here I am..." and that the customer will then just so 
happen to have an *identical* set of requirements to whatever 
assumptions you made. I'm suggesting a) Get an identifiable customer up 
front to say "Yes, I'm interested in getting a library" and b) Get from 
them some set of desired requirements - even if its back-of-the-envelope 
sort of stuff. Do that *FIRST* before wasting time building something 
that perhaps nobody wants.



> 
> So, I would suggest, let's attack some of the problems along the
> way. Some of the larger problems may become easier to solve later.
> Bug the vendors for sure, but don't entirely depend upon this.
> 
Baby steps are fine. I just think the first and formost baby step needs 
to be "Find out which vendors are planning to continue developing their 
Ada compilers and find out if they want there to be some sort of CAL 
that they are willing to accept and play a role in developing." The rest 
can start to fall out of there. I think vendor participation is a 
necessary condition to starting anything.


> I have always taken the approach of learning from doing. So I would
> not discourage people from trying something new. Many projects may
> end up as throw-aways in the end, but that does not mean the effort
> is a wasted one. You seem to be worried about wasted effort(s).
> 

Because efforts have been wasted before and I want to make a *different* 
set of mistakes this time around. If you keep trying to get through a 
wall by running headlong into it, would you be surprised if someone says 
"This is foolish. Why not look for a door or window before charging at 
the wall again..." These efforts have been tried before and the evidence 
is right out there in the Internet to look at. You can compare all the 
attempts and compare all the Ada implementations and you see that the 
attempts are not found in Ada implementations. If you want to go that 
route again - its your head that is going to hit the wall while I'm 
feeling around for the doornob. ;-)


>> Yes, but just recall all the other various and sundry "Open Source" /
>> Volunteer oriented projects of any stripe that get started out there.
>> (Should we start a list?)
> 
> 
> As I've pointed out earlier, a failed project is never completely
> a failure. Someone/people have learned lessons from those undertakings,
> even if it is just to understand their own level of commitment ;-)

Yes, and from my "failed" projects, I've learned that you need to get 
the customer involved very early on. ;-)

> 
> I think you are concerned that Ada resources are thinner, and so
> you don't want to see that resource wasted. A valid concern. But
> a certain amount of this so called "waste" is a necessary part of
> any R&D.
> 
But we've *Done* the "Waste" part already. Let's *Learn* from that and 
get the customer involved in it *Early* to avoid more waste.



> 
> Well, I don't really have a plan (shrink), other than what I've
> posted in earlier posts in this thread. You raised some interesting
> ideas in your Ada Letters article, which might work. It would be
> nice in fact, if that would work. Maybe I am showing my own
> skepticism here, but I think for that to succeed, you'll need some
> Richard Stallman type that is willing to lead that charge. It will
> take a strong minded, vision incensed person to make sure that it
> is realized. Are you leading that charge? Perhaps you are holding
> out on us? ;-)
> 

Well, I don't know what I'm leading here if anything. But if a few folks 
representing vendors were to come to me and say "Please, Marin, with 
your sublime wisdom and vast vision, could you somehow or other find 
some way to devote some time to this???" I might be tempted to do so. I 
suspect they have their own visionaries they could count on better. :-) 
Why? You think they want to offer me a job?

My premise is that if the vendors wanted to drive an effort to get a 
library, they could get one. If they are looking for volunteers, they 
could find some - but probably not enough to get it to market in a 
reasonable lenght of time or meeting requirements unless they have some 
paid-guidance overseeing the effort. The ideal situation would be to pay 
for the whole thing so you get exactly what you want and when you want 
it. If you don't have that kind of cash, then get creative about how to 
do it on a shoestring. A solution does exist. Do the vendors see it as a 
problem they want to solve? Is there interest in taking up the challenge?

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
======================================================================