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: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-07 10:42:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!chi1.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!nntpserver.com!falcon.america.net!eagle.america.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Larry Hazel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Library Interest? References: <3F7F760E.2020901@comcast.net> <3F8035B0.7080902@noplace.com> <3F816A35.4030108@noplace.com> <3F81FBEC.9010103@noplace.com> <6Ingb.30667$541.13861@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3F82B4A4.5060301@noplace.com> <3F82F527.3020101@noplace.com> In-Reply-To: <3F82F527.3020101@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:42:53 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.0.32.41 X-Trace: eagle.america.net 1065548527 66.0.32.41 (Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:42:07 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:42:07 EDT Organization: 24hoursupport.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:384 Date: 2003-10-07T12:42:53-05:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > Well, yes, that's pretty much compatible with the idea I've been putting > forward. If you have some group or organization overseeing some > updatable library, people could contribute what they thought would be > useful. The organization could arrive at some decision about its > suitability and include it if it seemed to warrant it. (They would be > playing the job of "Editor/Publisher" - work with a developer to get > something suitable and add it to the next scheduled release as deemed > necessary. That's how you'd resolve style issues and other things you > might care about, like documentation.) You'd have a release cycle with > sufficient frequency to give the language a means of rapidly reacting to > a changing world without locking something into the ARM that might prove > to be a "Bad Idea" or unstable or unproven. You get a more market-driven > language capability without absolute standardization (the ARM) or > absolute chaos (grabbing random libraries from the Internet.) > > If the vendors are on board with it, they pick up new releases and > distribute them with their compilers. They'd have the final say about > what they wanted to accept. They'd be responsible if there were any > portability issues to resolve. (Hopefully, few.) Ultimately pieces that > are added might or might not make it into the ARM, but so what? You've > got source code and if you like it, you use it with some guarantee that > it is common across implementations. I don't see how this is > undesirable. You get more functionality in a portable and standard way. > Long term, it may be an ARM feature if it is popular and stable enough. > > MDC > > > Stephane Richard wrote: > >> >> Well yes 10 years is a long time....We'd need something like the Linux >> system. By that I mean. Some one develops a new thing, suggests it to >> makers of Ada (like in linux they give it to the makers of linux) for >> acceptance into the next release (which typically doesn't take 10 >> years in >> most cases). by the end of 10 years if enough makers of Ada have it >> as part >> of their compiler then the revision can't overlook it. if it's that >> popular >> aside some terminology changes (say you didn't use the underscore in your >> names and Ada guidelines recommend you should, etc etc). then it gets >> added >> into the next revision..... >> >> I do agree that 10 years is a very long time and that might be part of >> the >> reason which slows down Ada's progress on the popularity charts. it's >> strength (truely standard language) is also it's qeakness (way too long >> revision period). I would say either the revisions need to be closer >> together (a year max instead of 10 years) or allow a principle of >> ammendment >> to the standard that could be revised periodically and whatever makes >> it to >> that revision would be part of the "official revisison". or some >> system so >> that we dont have to wait that long. >> >> hence the standard commity either need to be more present and >> accessible to >> the Ada community, or form a team of members or non members that could do >> this regular interval thing. >> > > Even if it were not distributed with compilers, having everything in one place as "The Ada Library" rather than bits and pieces here and there, it would be a great improvement over what we have now.