Re: Future with Ada

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

Well, its a classic "Make or Buy" decision. There are a number of libraries
that were proposed that might have been used - with modifications. That gets
you out the door quicker but doesn't necessarily meet with all the
requirements. The problem seems to be that in tossing out a handful of
possible libraries to adopt, there were a non-trivial number of people who
had some non-trivial objections to the existing libraries. We're never going
to get 100% acceptance of any library, but it wasn't sounding as if there
was any fairly large body of developers that was willing to "Adopt & Adapt"
(Embrace & Extend?).

I agree it would be quicker and guarantee a result to go the "Adopt & Adapt"
route - but there didn't seem to be something out there that was good enough
to get some acquiescence. If its going to be "interest group driven" then
there's got to be "interest group buy-in" and I don't see a large amount of
that for any given candidate library already out there. (Unless there's a
great silent-majority of lurkers out there who aren't expressing any of
their desires?) Hence, I think the best chance there is to get something
group-driven is to keep persuing the group-developed alternative.

I wouldn't mind being wrong about this but I don't see it happening. Unless
the vendors want to say "Just Do It - (with library X)" it looks like the
only way its going to get done is if the group builds one of its own.

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/


"Brian Rogoff" <bpr@bpr.best.vwh.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.40.0112171622550.17842-100000@bpr.best.vwh.net...
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Pat Rogers wrote:
> > "Mark Lundquist" <no.spam@getalife.com> wrote in message
> > > I must say that I'm quite opposed to the "pick one and go with it
idea",
> > and
> > > I really wish that you would reconsider recommending it.  I think we
can
> > do
> > > better than that, and that's what some of us here are trying to do.
> >
> > Then I hope I am wrong.
>
> I don't think you are. Remmeber there was another waste of time effort in
> this direction a few years ago, too.
>
> -- Brian
>
>