Re: List container strawman 1.1

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

I'm wondering if everyone is declaring it "Unacceptable" or perhaps a little
less strongly, it is merely being viewed as "Undesirable". (That would
describe my gut feeling on it.) I'd still think that the BC's might be
usable if some conditions were met. 1) See if you can hide some of the
complexity by making a simple-case binding for the most common usages. 2)
Create a "Booch Components for Idiots" text that shows cookie-cutter
recepies for how to do the simple cases (covers up for #1 if that's not
feasable.) 3) Get some reasonable level of concensus that the BC's are an
acceptable, if not perfect, solution. (I'd agree to this - how about the
rest of the crowd?)

Or it might be possible to declare as part of the BC's++ that there will be
a couple of new packages that handle the simple cases while keeping the rest
of the BC's around for the more advanced user?

I think the biggest problem here is that we all have our own particular
desires, programming styles, knowledge-base, etc., that keeps us hoping we
can get something more to our liking. Nothing wrong with that, but the
likely outcome of insisting on it is going to be that everyone goes their
own way and we're right back here at the beginning with no common component
library.

Is it possible we might work in this direction:

1) Accept the BC's as a working hypothesis.

2) Extend the BC's to include some List and Map components that handle the
simple cases without too much pain. (Basically, something like what Ted put
out as a strawman. It either stands alone or is implemented with the BC's as
a wrapper around them.)

3) Add on to the BC's the capability of loading and storing the components
to files via some version of working nicely with Streams.

4) Come up with a document that does a little bit of basic "How To"
explaining and have this go along for the ride in some way.

5) Get some acceptance from the vendors to have this endorsed and hopefully
shipped with some compilers.

What I'm outlining above doesn't sound like it is impossible to accept nor
does it constitute some astronomical level of work. A small group of us
might be able to accomplish this before the next ice age. Would this be
acceptable to anyone?

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/


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:20TG7.18929$xS6.30469@www.newsranger.com...
> instantiation of it) to instantiate the second package. Its not too
horrible one
> you figure it out. But this is exactly what Booch does that everyone is
saying
> is unacceptable. So I feel that we really need to avoid using child
packages
> unless there is a compelling reason.
>