Re: Standard Library Interest?

["Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5220 bytes --]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3F8F487E.80405@noplace.com...
> Well, I could quit talking about it and maybe even devote some time to
> building it. Why not start with the Booch components? Or Grace? Or
> Charles? Or PragmAda? Or any of the others I've forgot to mention? Would
> the vendors get on board and say "If you guys shut up and start
> programming on top of XYZ library, we'll put it into our next release
> and start calling it the Conventional Ada Library..." I could get with
> that program, but I'd like to see some of the folks that matter say
> something about what they'd accept or reject. If none of those is
> suitable, then lets hear them say that - and then say something about
> what they *would* accept.

*** yes that would be a neat little insight to build on.  no doubt about it.
Is this the only sure way to go in the right direction?  what do we aim with
this library?  To have something that can put Ada back in it's fair share of
the market, whether embedded or general purpose wise.  Am I right?  as a
general statement of course. :-)

*** If I am right, then a simple comparison of the "popular" language's
libraries and the ones for ada should be enough to elaborate a complete and
detailed list of what's missing in Ada to at least provide the same feautres
as the "popular" languages. no?

*** In that frame of mind.  We definitaly need libraries of all kinds, not
just data structures like Charles, Mats Weber's Ada Component Library and
the likes.  what's missing? as far as bindings are concerned?  well yes
MIDI/Audio bindings (thin and more so a thick MIDI and DIgital Audio
binding) for one.  in the same field, bindings to popular Linux Sounds
architectures like ALSA woudl be a good idea too so that Ada developers can
exploit those fields of development.  We have Engine_3D, AdaOpenGL, AdaSDL
for the graphic side...how about libraries of 3D animated graphics?  usign
those bindings so that they can be exploited too.  We got APQ right now for
a Database BInding, it's getting pretty good too.  But there's more to be
done, and Database in the industry is a must and should be considered.
There's no way that these ideas wouldn't help the outcome of the library
itself because they are sought after features of the "popular" languages.

>
> I don't even think it would need to be all the vendors. Look at it this
> way: Some of the vendors are out there actively developing their
> compilers and looking to improve their toolsets. Others are content to
> "milk the cash-cow" - they have an Ada compiler to sell but don't see it
> as an important future product so they do as little as is necessary to
> support it. They may not even see enough potential there to make it
> worth their time to upgrade it to Ada0x, so do they even count? How many
> of the vendors fall into the first category? Who are they? What if we
> got just those vendors to discuss it and express some opinions on what
> they'd like?
>
*** well since we do aim to have the library distributed with the compilers,
we'd definitaly need some feed back from the vendors.  No doubt about that
either.  we need to know from anyone (vendors and/or organizations) that
we're heading in the right direction.  but my first guess is that if we give
Ada what it's missing when compared to the "popular" languages.  It would be
hard for anyone to say we're not on the right track.  If not sooner in the
library's development then later but these missing features should
definitaly be implemented.

*** and that's just as far as libraries go.  There's other parts missing as
well.  At least some parts that need fine tuning at least :-)....Ada Core
Technologies has GPS which seems to be a good all around Ada IDE that seems
to integrate a good set of features expected in an IDE, but perhaps there 's
more that could be integrated.  and other tools (aplications) that could be
developed to give ada developers even more flexibility and integration as
per Ada and related technologies.


> I don't think I'm asking for the moon and the sun and the stars here.
> Just some minimal display of interest and some guidance on
> priorities/requirements on the part of a small handful of vendors who
> stand to benefit by having their product improved at little to no cost
> to them - at least initially. Does that seem so unreasonable?
>
*** I can't help but agree that sooner or later, the vendors will have to
get busy with this project.  at least the ones that do plan on moving to
Ada0X :-).  They'll need to step in for two reasons.

1. The library is aimed at giving the compilers more features, hence more
selling points.
2. To make sure we don't waste months developing something they already have
in their currently added libraries/features.  or their future projects too.
And if there is a conflict they'll have to reach the decision to either tell
us they got that side covered or redirect their efforts into a new project
and use ours as long as no one (us or them) waste time doing the same thing.

> I'd be happy to discuss it with them off-line. All it takes is to send
> me an e-mail.
>
> MDC
>
>
>


-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com