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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,54c513170bafd693 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Jean-Pierre Rosen" Subject: Re: Desirability of C++ Date: 2000/05/03 Message-ID: <8epgst$hc1$1@wanadoo.fr>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 618725280 References: <390DEC7F.9429C82C@online.no> <390E2A20.B647D0D6@maths.unine.ch> <8em8mb$evd$1@wanadoo.fr> <390EEF24.BD36AA24@maths.unine.ch> <8eonmi$e4q$2@wanadoo.fr> <39103CBE.7D5B9F4E@quadruscorp.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.fr X-Trace: wanadoo.fr 957368029 17793 193.250.160.40 (3 May 2000 15:33:49 GMT) Organization: Adalog X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 May 2000 15:33:49 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-03T15:33:49+00:00 List-Id: Marin D. Condic a �crit dans le message : 39103CBE.7D5B9F4E@quadruscorp.com... > Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > > The difficult point is to what extent should libraries go to the standard. > > In 83, the line of the party was that there was no need to put libraries > > that could easily be written by the user; that was the reason for not having > > complex types, for example. In 95, it was recognized that this lead too > > often to people rewriting all the time the same modules with slightly > > different interfaces, and the borderline was moved to include more > > libraries - but certainly not all libraries that could be useful, or even > > desirable. > > > I can understand the reasons for arguing that the standard should not > include libraries that are not "language" issues. Obviously the > hard-core end of the spectrum which wanted few/no libraries is no longer > in vogue with Ada95 specifying many new libraies. It would seem to me > that there might be some big advantages (for the language, at least, if > not for vendors) to letting the pendulum swing further in the other > direction. Why not specify even more libraries than are presently > available so long as they are optional annexes? > Here in the Ada world, we tend to think that nothing is "standard", sometimes not even usable, before it has been rubber-stamped by ISO. A LOT of useful stuff in other languages is pretty "standard" without having ever been endorsed by any official body. Yes, making libraries widely available is a good thing, but waiting for ISO to endorse it would be much too long a process. Put the good stuff on the web, let everybody use it, and call it a "de facto" standard. If you can persuade your Ada vendor to provide the libraries in its standard distribution, it's even better. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (Rosen.Adalog@wanadoo.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://pro.wanadoo.fr/adalog