Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT)

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

> 
> There is extensive documentation for Charles, though (1) it is named
> STL elsewhere, and (2) Charles is "an Ada library", so there are
> differences. However, being "modelled principally on the C++ STL",
> there are quite some good books covering STL usage and concepts,
> and thus, mutatis mutandis, some Charles concepts.
> 
There is an enormoous difference between getting a library that, when 
installed (with an install shield or similar - not just "unpack it and 
figure it out for yourself) has a built-in hyperlinked document that 
gives you help on any given class or method you can point at and click, 
versus someone saying "You can always get a good book for a library that 
was written in a different language and figure that our library lines up 
pretty close to that one."

Whatever documentation is available for Charles, it isn't an integrated 
part of the library. There may be any number of ways for the determined 
user to find out what Charles does, but it isn't just standing right 
there saying "Here I am - let me tell you more about it..." Does the 
documentation even come with the distribution? Does the documentation 
hyperlink to the code after installation - or, more importantly, does 
the code hyperlink to the documentation? Really first rate documentation 
is a *HARD* thing to achieve and (not to criticize Charles) I have not 
seen any all-volunteer, freebie products out there for Ada that meet the 
truly professional standards one can expect from many commercial products.

While ACT is free to do whatever they like, I would find it unlikely 
that they would glom onto Charles as-is and just start distributing it. 
They'd either wait until a better level of documentation were done or 
have to invest their own energy into doing so. In either case, I think 
that vendor involvement and support is much more likely to get the job 
done than waiting for volunteers to do it - especially when those 
volunteers don't see any potential reward other than the fame, glory and 
opportunity to meet chicks.



> (Does it help knowing that STL work began with Ada and Scheme? :)
> 
Nope. If I loved the STL so much, I'd run off and use C++. Ada having 
inspired the STL and Charles having copied the STL is pretty irrelevant. 
Its Ada saying "Me too!!!" rather than "I'm head-and-shoulders above the 
STL!"

> And aren't there extensive reports about the Booch components?
> For the 83 version, you have a book covering a lot.
> Booch is a writer, too, isn't he, so I gather that the free
> Booch components aren't lightyears away from MS libraries, even
> where the documents aren't in the distribution, or in the source
> files?
> 
It is still light years away. In the case of MSVC++ and the MFC - I lay 
down some money, I run through an install shield and *BAM*! There I am 
with a library and hyperlinked documentation built into an IDE that is 
extremely thorough and complete. In the other, I download Booch. I go 
looking for books - which I probably have to order because it isn't at 
the local Barnes and Noble, I study the text for hours, I get a question 
about some class or method and I'm off leafing through paper, etc. In 
situation 1, it is very convenient, easy, direct, immediate, etc. In the 
other, I have to put forth all sorts of effort to get all the pieces and 
I have no guarantee that any of it is even connected or up to date.

If you want to gain users, you must make it as EASY and PAINLESS as 
possible to get REALLY high quality stuff. Users are like water flowing 
downhill - they seek the path of least resistance. You can argue all day 
long "But this is just as good as.....!!!!!" and they will stay away 
from your product in droves if there is something easier and more 
complete out there. I don't have to argue the point - they're doing it 
for me by avoiding Ada like the plague.


> What do you think about the descriptions in the source files of
> Mats Weber's components?
> 
Have not looked at it. However, I still think there is a qualitative 
difference between someone saying "Here's my source code and here's 
20something pages of description of whats in it" and someone saying 
"Here's my library and help is a point-and-click away on *anything* in 
it." Obviously, a library with a user's manual is better than a library 
with nothing more than source code. Clearly a library with a user's 
manual that is hyperlinked to the source code is superior to just a 
user's manual. Ultimately, the user's manual has to be clearly written, 
thorough, up-to-date, etc.

Its just that if you look at the *competition*, they're offering a lot 
more than a batch of source code and a .PDF file with some general 
descriptions of what's in it. You can't say "I'm *almost* that good." 
You have to say "I'm *superior*!" or nobody has any incentive to switch 
from what they've got to what you're offering.

MDC

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is
     basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and
     then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a
     memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The
     users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept
     sedated"

         --  Marin D. Condic
======================================================================