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,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-17 11:09:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: 17 Apr 2002 11:09:05 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0204171009.30336212@posting.google.com> References: <3CB94312.5040802@snafu.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1019066946 8700 127.0.0.1 (17 Apr 2002 18:09:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Apr 2002 18:09:06 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22669 Date: 2002-04-17T18:09:06+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:... > I certainly wouldn't mind at all adopting an existing solution as the > starting point for a standard. The problem is quite often that everybody has > a different idea about what they want and short of having a solution > unilaterally imposed on them, agreement isn't likely. If Claw could evolve > into a generic interface for GUI building (rather than be Windows specific) > then I have no objection to it. It might even be fair to say "Here's the > 'official' Ada interface to Windows..." and see if it could migrate > elsewhere at a later point. I doubt that. There's just too many different systems out there for there to ever be only one. No matter what you do, there are going to be people who want their OS's standard OS look and feel, or who want to use stuff like DirectX or OpenGL. > But if it were to stand a chance of success, the best way I can think of it > getting accepted would be if it were shipped with most of the Ada compilers > out there so that the developer's thinking would have to be: "Well, I may > not like it, but its here and certainly a lot easier to take advantage of > than to roll my own or go looking for an alternative..." ...which is precisely what was done with Win32Ada. Exactly. In another post I called this something like "standardization path 1". Path 2 (release it publicly and hope everyone uses it) is probably a distant second, and nothing else is even in the ballpark. -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison) Homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html