Re: Ada95 for Windows 95 Reviewers Wanted

[crawley@dstc.edu.au (Stephen Crawley)]

In an earlier article, I wrote:
>>"I'm in no position to judge whether or not RR's bindings are of good
>>quality, but I think that my point is a valid one anyway.  The Ada
>>user community would not be well served by having lots of mutually
>>incompatible W95 binding products.  I would hope that the Ada
>>community is now mature enough to strongly resist such a trend!"

In article <dewar.827590178@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>I disagre with the sentiment here. Ther is no point in standardizing
>thick bindings of low quality.

I agree with that.

I guess my original message was not clear.  The point I was trying to
make was that other manufacturers should >>consider<< adopting RR's
bindings as an interim standard.

If RR's bindings are "no good" [ ... I have no data ... ] then it
would not serve anyone's purposes to standardise on them, and the
consideration process should be a simple one [:-)]

OTOH, if RR's bindings are "good" or even "half-way good", they could
and possibly should serve as an interim defacto standard.

Either way, making the package spec's public domain is a good first
step.

-- Steve