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: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-17 09:07:33 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Future with Ada Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:43:24 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9vl3r1$p5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9v57u1$mfb$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9v74ov014bc@drn.newsguy.com> <9vb24v$7fg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9vdp9f$9vo$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1008603809 805 136.170.200.133 (17 Dec 2001 15:43:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Dec 2001 15:43:29 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18015 Date: 2001-12-17T15:43:29+00:00 List-Id: "Pat Rogers" wrote in message news:YxvS7.2239$_h.1737012240@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > > > > But I don't recall that there were large number of folks calling Thomas > > Edison on the phone and asking for him to invent the light bulb. Nor did > > people Fax Henry Ford pictures of the car they wanted with a suggested > name > > of "Model T". :-) > > :-) On the other hand, there weren't competing auto makers, lightbulb > manufacturers, etc. available. > But that ought to be a clue that "The Market" is in desire of some specific kinds of things. If C++ provides the STL and developers like it and use it, that ought to suggest that a compiler that comes with something similar would be of desire to the users of Ada. If Java comes with class libraries for building GUI apps, that should be a signal that users would want something similar from Ada. Customers don't always call you on the phone and tell you they want a specific capability. Sometimes they "vote with their feet" and buy some other product because it fits their needs better. (Can you hear a customer saying "Ada's O.K. for this kind of thing but when we want to build Web/GUI apps, we just switch to Java..."?) Granted, you can't do everything and you can't be all things to all people. Hence you have to try to get some signals as to what is going to be the most profitable way of allocating your resources. But I think with the "Data Structures" case, the problem is that you might have - say - 50 ways of doing essentially the same thing and 100 opinions about which is the best and why. Specifically *because* there's such a shortage of consensus, (except consensus that having one would be A Good Thing) getting something imposed from the outside (or at least some direction/guidance) would likely be a big push for success. I like the stuff that has been come up with in the latest discussion. I think that Ted's strawman would be a good compromise of all the competing goals and objectives. If we had that much (and Maps) riding along with most compilers (and a promise of possibly more things as experience suggests) we'd have a richer language. > > > Sometimes businesses come up with something great and new and go > > out and educate their customers as to why they would want to have it. > > Waiting for a groundswell of demand from the customer base for some > > particular container library is, IMHO, just about guaranteed to result in > No > > Standard Ada Component Library(tm). > > I confess I don't see why not, unless you mean there would be no > groundswell, in which case I would have to agree. Hence my original > proposal -- let's start the groundswell! > > Well, because what you have is a single groundswell that says "A library of components is a good thing" and then you have a thousand mini-groundswells that say "And in the library that *I* want, there should be X and Y and..." So if a vendor is going to wait for - say - 50 paying customers to all stand up and unanimously say "Put Library N On Your Distribution" it might be a cold day in Florida before it happens. :-) Whereas, if the vendors were saying "We agree that if a library is going to be distributed and supported, it ought to be: " it might start coalescing some of the demand around something in particular. So while I understand the direction you are proposing and I agree that it would be expedient & would get results, I guess I have doubts that the consensus will congeal unless the vendors were involved in setting the direction. That's why in some ways what is going on with the strawman discussed elsewhere is a positive step. In the abscence of any other direction, people are coming together and negotiating something they can mutually live with. That might produce a library that has enough "buy in" that there might actually be some demand for one specific existing library. Just my thinking on the subject..... 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/