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: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-22 22:21:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F976548.6030107@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: Standard Library Interest? References: <3F81FBEC.9010103@noplace.com> <6Ingb.30667$541.13861@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3F82B4A4.5060301@noplace.com> <3F82F527.3020101@noplace.com> <3F846B5E.9080502@comcast.net> <3F855460.6020804@noplace.com> <3F86211B.103@comcast.net> <3F8640CA.6090306@noplace.com> <3F881515.4060305@noplace.com> <6lijb.140205$%h1.139381@sccrnsc02> <3F8E9531.9040209@noplace.com> <3F8EDB1A.1010007@noplace.com> <3F914520.9080906@noplace.com> <8Pdlb.4756$7t3.157424@news20.bellglobal.com> <3F96803B.8010308@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:21:21 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.65.179 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1066886481 165.247.65.179 (Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:21:21 PDT) mcondic@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:21:21 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1490 Date: 2003-10-23T05:21:21+00:00 List-Id: O.K. I'm not dismissing an Open Source route, and I'm not dismissing an all-volunteer, unpaid, organically grown route either. What I *am* dismissing is the idea that we can somehow survey all the Ada users out there and come up with a coherent set of requirements on which to base it. I'm dismissing the notion that once implemented, all those Ada users are then going to drop what they *are* using in favor of the library put out there. I'm further dismissing the idea that the vendors will then see the light and get on board and start distributing it. We've been down a route that was some version of "Lets get everyone's consensus on what they want and then try to come up with something that will be adopted by all..." Its been tried more than once. There is no standard library being shipped by vendors as a result of that. That's why I'm saying lets try a *different* route - one that would be to get the *vendors* to act as "Customer Representatives" and stipulate what it is they want to see done. (Think of it as a Republic rather than a Democracy) The vendors are in a good position to know what sort of requirements their customers might have and - rather than try to get a consensus from a few thousand users - you get it from a handful of representatives. Given that you might get requirements from the vendors as customer representatives, one would presume that they would bundle it and ship it to their customers once built. Doing that would go an *IMENSE* way towards making the library a de-facto standard because people tend to use what they get with their compiler rather than try to go use something they just glommed off the Internet. They might complain that it wasn't done the way they wanted it done (I do that here from time to time, don't I?) or that it could have been better or that it excluded their pet features - but they'd USE IT because it was there and of good quality. That's where I see the critical difference and where it is that we apparently disagree - you want to start with a few hundred or more requirements writers and hope that consensus across a few thousand (or more) users is going to result, thus bringing the vendors on board. I want to start with 2, 3, 4 vendors and let them bring the customers/end users on board. Your approach has been tried a number of times and not resulted in much. Mine has yet to be tried and may fail for a whole different batch of reasons - but they will be *different*. :-) MDC Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > So I guess if I was to summarize my point in response it would be > simply this: "don't dismiss the open sourced route, simply because > it has been tried, and been unfunded. While the past is often an > indicator of what is likely, it does not necessarily predispose > it to failure." I think the last sentence is where we mostly > disagree. ;-) > -- ====================================================================== 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 ======================================================================