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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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: 2001-10-11 17:12:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news.cc.ukans.edu!newscon05.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3BC30674.BA88AAB6@brighton.ac.uk> <9pvv3t$ves$1@news.huji.ac.il> <9q49fc$nh3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q4dnk017fg@drn.newsguy.com> <9q4fr6$qj5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q4m4t$t4n$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q4rel$23p$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Subject: Re: why not "standardize" the Booch Components? (was Re: is Ada dying?) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.176.121 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com 1002845409 ST000 208.191.176.121 (Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:10:09 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:10:09 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: Q[R_PJSCTS@USVT^ORHL_IXBUSXHQD\MNPWZKB]MPXH@ETUCCNSKQFCY@TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK@TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG@SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC@VJM Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:10:09 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14348 Date: 2001-10-12T00:10:09+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:9q4rel$23p$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > Being able to compile them and being willing to distribute them are two > different things. I could imagine lots of business reasons why a vendor > might say "thanks, but no thanks" to the suggestion that they bundle someone > else's software in with their compiler distribution. > > Observation: The Booch Components have been available on the Net for some > time now and IIRC, they were available under a license very similar to (if > not identical to) the one used for the Gnat runtime code. (IOW, no big legal > restrictions to prevent a vendor from using them.) Yet in all that time, how > many vendors have packaged the BCs with their compiler? By my count, that > number would look amazingly a lot like "zero" (correct my count if you know > of one that does...). Why not? They're "available". They "add value". They > "cost nothing". Since I don't believe the vendors are either a) Stupid or b) > Ignorant (of the existence of the BCs.) I've got to believe there is some > reason they don't already do this. (Quality? Implied willingness to support? > Implied endorsement? Insufficient components/documentation? Waiting for a > winner to emerge? Product distinction? Not Invented Here?) Occam's Razor says it is probably because nobody has asked them to do so. (And I'm assuming that is because they are already available off the Net.) > That is why I think it would be valuable to hear the vendor's opinions on > what is required of some potential component library. Get three or four > vendors willing to say "If you guys build something like this.... we'll > distribute it with the compiler..." and then you've really got something. Sounds like a question to put to the ARA...