"Robert I. Eachus" wrote in message news:PomdnQFWG_DaNziiRVn-hQ@comcast.com... > > > Marin David Condic wrote: > > > Perhaps some other vendors may come out with a different answer, but it > > isn't looking like they want to start jumping on the bandwagon, does it? > > It wouldn't much matter *how* it got built (all-volunteer or some mix of > > funding, from some TBD sources, etc.) The interest level from the > > vendors is asymptotically approaching zero as far as I can tell. > > > So maybe a library is a bad idea. (I don't think so) If so, then I hope > > the vendors or ARG can come up with some *other* idea that is going to > > generate some new interest in Ada. Why is it I can hear Danny DiVito in > > the background reciting his speech from "Other People's Money": "I'm > > sure at one time there must have been hundreds of companies out there > > making buggy whips...." (Substitute "Ada Compilers" for "Buggy Whips" ;-) > > I think that in one sense asking the Ada compiler vendors is necessary. > But in another it is irrelevant. If we know what users want and > provide it, the compiler vendors will be asked by THEIR customers to > provide and support it. If the end users don't want it, won't use it, > or can't use it, then this whole effort is a waste of time. > > Of course, to some extent compiler vendors are Ada programmers/users, > and they are in touch with their customers and their needs. > > Some years ago, I worked out the right solution--form an Ada software > engineering guild, or for that matter a software engineer's guild, and > one of the functions of the guild would be to provide and support a > library that could be used by its members. (Including corporate > members.) If you could get the system to insist on only using guild > licensed programmers in the correct disciplines, and guild software > engineers on certain types of projects this would finally give software > engineering a realistic model to work with. > > Anyone who really is a software engineer not a glorified programmer, > knows that the only way software engineering is taught is not in school > but by mentoring. And most corporations don't have a mechanism for > recognizing mentoring effort, and people who have in effect graduated > from apprentice to journeyman, or from journeyman to master. > > But all that is way beyond what we can accomplish here. But I do feel > that doing the registry right will give us both a better idea of what > exists and a way to track what is used or wanted. > > Finally, note that once we do get a group well organized to create a > common Ada library that will be used, we can survey both c.l.a and > SIGAda to find out what people think they want--and what they currently > use or have used, etc. > Seems I've failed at my goal here :-). I wanted to cover the vendors side not only as far as "investments" but also as far as possibility to incude our effort in they distros, and attempt to get insight on what they want and what they think their clients want. I have to agree with IRVINE that customers aren't really looking at compiler vendors to bring them our project, however I agree with you that should this first part, the registry, be done and done right (which I must say is well under way from what I'm seing in your XML and your frame of mind :-). it will give is that information that us and everyone else (vendors alike, SIG Ada and the others too) a good representation of today's Ada reality as far as what's there, where is it, and most preciously and ultimately what's left to be done. so I'm definitally all for this initial phase. But I've failed at my side so far because the reason I did this survey was mainly 1. to know possible answers to the every repeating questions I've asked the vendors maybe try to at least get a hint as to what we should do next....so far, to me, the registry is the only "logical" next step for both not reproducing the code, and knowing exactly what to attack next code wise. 2. I've also contacted compiler vendors for the purpose of settling issues as in those of us who had beliefs of vendors participating financially or with a good time effort or any other way, see if it could happen and when in the process of our project it could happen..from what I'm seeing so far, only at the end or at least at the end of the registry phase. But I wanted those that were aslking questions to get their answers :-). Not raise new doubts...I got 3 vendors on the wait for their replies we'll have to see what their answers are (should there even be an answer. Aoniz agreed to answer the survey but I've not yet gotten anything. The oither two well just waiting...they've been contacted :-). As er the survey, once the registry is done, like Robert suggests, we'll be better equited to: 1. Evaluate the work left to be done to amass to a presentable solution. 2. See exactly what in there can be "reasonably" done as per a voluntary effort. 3. What (if any) can't possible be done by a voluntary effort. 4. See what parts of the registry need to be filled up that could potentially attract different types of customers and new customers of the same existing types too 5. Compare what's out there with what's out there for other languages and maybe attack these areas (which? not sure yet but I'm still thinking what the other languages offer that Ada does not in terms of libraries. 6. See in the existing code, if there's any dependencies that shoudl be replaced with non dependant code (should there be a possible non dependant alternative). A couple more pieces of information will arise from this registry too that I'm not thinking of right now but did recently ;-).... With these, the rest will fall into place as far as work to be done, quality of documentation required (perhaps by consulting WG's that do documentation of the standard, perhaps they have tips and tricks to greatly minimize our effort at good documentation. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com