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: 103376,7ee10ec601726fbf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-11 14:48:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.190.198.17!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: why not "standardize" the Booch Components? (was Re: is Ada dying?) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:32:07 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9q534p$5cg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3BC30674.BA88AAB6@brighton.ac.uk> <9pvv3t$ves$1@news.huji.ac.il> <9q49fc$nh3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q4s5v$2j4$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1002835929 5520 136.170.200.133 (11 Oct 2001 21:32:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Oct 2001 21:32:09 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:14338 Date: 2001-10-11T21:32:09+00:00 List-Id: I understand the chicken/egg problem, and can sympathize. I wouldn't demand planning everything in advance - just seeing some reasonable level of interest by players who would be significant to a project's success. An analogy would be getting a "letter of intent" from a buyer that you could take to a bank to gain financing to enable you to produce the product that they have expressed the intent to purchase. As an ACM/SIGAda member, I'd think this organization would be the proper forum for developing a usable component library (out of existing parts or from bottom-dead-center). No reason the ASCLWG couldn't be resurrected in some form to do the job. ASIS was developed in a similar way. My concern is that such a project needs two things: A reasonably clear mission and some level of committment from compiler vendors. I'd want to see the vendors drive the effort by stating what they would and would not find acceptable. If you cannot find at least one vendor to get on board and commit to distributing the end product (and possibly provide some resources & support of their own?) then what you've got is an old maid looking for a suitor. Like I said in other posts - the BC's have been out there for a while now. They have not found a widespread acceptance amongst either the vendors or the user community at large - or we wouldn't even be discussing this now. Are the BC's the right answer? Maybe - but I'd want to see some evidence that they wouldn't be rejected out of hand by everyone before investing any significant energy in improving them. BTW: I just went to Adapower and looked over the BC page. There is some level of documentation there. The source code is there. There are release notes and zip files and all that good stuff. What more would you see as needing to be done to make them an acceptable baseline for a component library? 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/ "Pascal Obry" wrote in message news:uk7y1sxv3.fsf@wanadoo.fr... > > Well this is a bit the chicken and egg problem ! Without proper documentation > the BC could never gets more attention... You seem to want to plan every thing > in advance... I think the open projects are more a kind of game-of-life, you > launch somehting it eventually die or live ! The point is that more effort is > put on a project and more chance there is for it to survive. >