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, LOTS_OF_MONEY 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 09:33:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.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 11:03:37 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9vl50r$1c7$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9v57u1$mfb$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9v74ov014bc@drn.newsguy.com> <9vb24v$7fg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9vdp9f$9vo$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1008605019 1415 136.170.200.133 (17 Dec 2001 16:03:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Dec 2001 16:03:39 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18017 Date: 2001-12-17T16:03:39+00:00 List-Id: "Mark Lundquist" wrote in message news:eQhT7.13950$MM5.1154373@rwcrnsc53... > > > If the aim is to improve the overall appeal of the whole Ada "package" -- > the attractiveness of Ada as a solution -- then choosing something on the > basis of convenience will not do. Expedite the aim, not just quickness. > Even if something is merely a "de facto standard", it must be every bit as > good as to be in the "Real Standard". Perhaps that, is the reason there is > no current "de facto standard" -- not just that nobody has bothered to ring > up the compiler vendors and ask them to bundle something. > I understand and sympathize. OTOH, I was around once before when there was an attempt to come up with an Ada Standard Components Library (A Good Thing) and watched the whole thing kind of wither because of endless discussion and lack of consensus. I'm not blaming anybody - just observing that the risk of trying to come up with something new in this area is difficult and the net result has been "No Standard Ada Library". A poor, de facto standard by adopting something already out there is infinitely superior to the perfect standard that does not exist. > Ehud Lamm has suggested that the perfect library for Ada has not been > written yet. I suspect that this is true, and in that light the current > lack of a standard is actually a good thing, as are the debates that we have > about all these issues. > A "Perfect" library will never exist - just too many competing design goals. Some amount of debate and some amount of consensus-building is a good thing. If it results in months and months with no concrete results, its going to wither and die. Generating a concrete result of *some* size in some reasonable timespan will go a long way towards keeping momentum going on it. If this were organized a little more along the lines of how Ada itself was built (a chief designer with some committee feedback & approval) it might meet the objectives you outline more easily. To some extent, we have that. However, it really lacks any sort of "Official Charter" with a clear mission, milestones, deadlines and an identifiable end-customer to keep it on track. That's where I see some risk in the sort of informal thing going on now. I'd like to minimize the risks and help insure we actually end up with a result. It looks like we're getting there to some extent... 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/