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: 103376,1e3f2eac5c026e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-24 19:42:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3FEA5C82.8050309@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: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference) References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo> <3FE991DD.5060301@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 03:42:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.25.129 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1072323727 209.165.25.129 (Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:42:07 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:42:07 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3800 Date: 2003-12-25T03:42:07+00:00 List-Id: The cost would *not* be near zero. Someone has to first work out all the legality rules and specify them in appropriate legalese for the ARM. Someone has to review and debate the new rules & test it against other rules to make sure it doesn't intercourse anything up. Someone has to go out and change every compiler that is currently being maintained, test it adequately to make sure it still works and then shepard it through validation. Someone has to write the validation suite - complete with cases that must be rejected by the compiler - not just ones that work. Someone has to argue that their compiler really did pass the suite with someone who has to argue that it didn't. Etc., etc., etc. There is (as I'm sure you are aware) a whole lot of effort that goes into *any* language feature - no matter how seemingly trivial. Some of it is by volunteers - but that doesn't stop it from *costing* something. Volunteers will only "volunteer" for so much before they tell you to go pile sand. All these resources need to be used wisely. That's why I think that given the cost of making some change like this, the money/time would better be spent on getting some feature that would make more of a difference to more people. Adding new library features doesn't involve compiler mods - just writing and validating the library. (Still a big job, but you didn't shake up a working compiler and have to prove it still works.) Hence I believe we'd get more useful stuff for the same input of effort. MDC Robert A Duff wrote: > > This change is hard to evaluate: the cost is near zero, and the benefit > is also near zero, so the cost/benefit ratio is difficult to estimate. > I've seen many such cases over the years, and I'd guess they usually > lose. -- ====================================================================== 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 "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================