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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,be23df8e7e275d73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-08 08:15:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: More Uniform Ada libraries (was: Proving Correctness) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:05:10 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9krkfa$g12$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9kea9a$lsc$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9keduf$qvc$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kelv1$riq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997283114 16418 136.170.200.133 (8 Aug 2001 15:05:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Aug 2001 15:05:14 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11620 Date: 2001-08-08T15:05:14+00:00 List-Id: If I understand you correctly, you are basically saying "I think having some big collection of utility code tacked on to a language compiler is important for my development business. I further think it is important that this library of utility code be (at least *mostly*) standard so that I can move from one vendor to another and not lose my investment in this library. If some substantial portion of Ada vendors do *not* provide some collection of utilities and some substantial portion of C++ venders *do* provide some collection of utilities, I am more apt to select C++ for my next development effort." If that is close to reflecting your opinion, I would certainly understand the sentiment. How to standardize a set of utilities and where they should come from and so on isn't necessarily the issue. If a language provides more utility code with (most) distributions, then I gain a lot of leverage by choosing that language. If that is what other languages are providing and it is gaining them adherents, perhaps Ada (as a collective effort) needs to consider how to do the same. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "nicolas" wrote in message news:DMac7.86$E96.95326@nnrp4.proxad.net... > > The business model is not my problem, and I don't have feelings about it. > The only feelings I have is that there are some customer side requirements, > coming from the reasons why we, and most Ada projects I know, made the Ada > choice about 12 years ago. > Our projects, and most projects I know, have nothing to do with embedded > systems and 'DOD similar' projects. > I don't believe that satisfying (for me) Ada solutions will be available in > the future, if those requirements are not fulfilled. > We have to know if we will be the last Ada users to have concerns, which are > not embedded systems and 'DOD similar' projects concerns. > If this is the case, we don't feel like fighting with Ada solution providers > which don't want to understand anything about what we need, and deliberately > ignore any other market's rules. > > > >