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: 2001-10-12 06:38:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.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: why not "standardize" the Booch Components? (was Re: is Ada dying?) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:28:13 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9q6r5f$3hc$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3BC30674.BA88AAB6@brighton.ac.uk> <9pvv3t$ves$1@news.huji.ac.il> <9q49fc$nh3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q4s5v$2j4$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q534p$5cg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q5fkk0ra0@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1002893295 3628 136.170.200.133 (12 Oct 2001 13:28:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Oct 2001 13:28:15 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:14387 Date: 2001-10-12T13:28:15+00:00 List-Id: Well, languages end up inherently "designed by committee" because they have a community of users who start calling for extensions and changes. (C++ and Java don't get influenced by everybody saying "I want feature XYZ..."?) It need not be a "design by committee" deal - it may just be building an appropriate adaptation of one person's design. (That's kind of what we're talking about with the BCs.) I understand the weaknesses of getting a committee involved - not the least of which is endless talk and no end result. But one advantage is that if there are a reasonably clear set of requirements and sufficient progress on agreeing on a series of specifications, you have a number of people who will be willing to do the work to produce the end result. Key is having some half-way reasonable level of agreement as to what to go off and build. If you get a quarum that says "If you build this, I'll use it..." or "If you build this, I'll distribute it..." then at least you've got some "market research" as to what sort of end product needs to be there. A committee is one way of getting that sort of research. 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/ "mitch@NOSPAM" wrote in message news:9q5fkk0ra0@drn.newsguy.com... > > > Oh no, not another design by a committe thing. This just reinforces the > view that Ada was indeed designed by a committe. > > The Java collection was designed by one guy at Sun. No committe was needed > to all agree on everything. C++ templates was also designed by one guy. > I think software that is designed by one or at most 2 people, is in > general better than software designed by a large group of people. > > May be 20 years from now Ada will have a standard library for collections, > but I won't hold my breath :) >