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: 3343 bytes --]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3F82B4A4.5060301@noplace.com...
> All right. But this would not be incompatible with my notion of having a
> Conventional Ada Library. Suppose that the ARM defines a package called
> CAL and underneath it, the arm defines some things like CAL.Containers
> and CAL.OS_Iterface, etc. Maybe these are stable enough to be in the ARM
> (I doubt it, but lets accept that for a moment). So long as the ARM
> allows the extension of this package, then you've got an "Official"
> ballpark in which to play. (Note that you are not allowed to modify or
> extend the package Ada - so this is the dead-wrong place in which to put
> a library.)
>
> So once you have this CAL package tree defined and allowed to be
> extended, you've got the basis for a library. The ARG, vendors, SIGAda,
> etc, could come up with a reference implementation of it and provide it
> in source to everyone/anyone - ship it along with the compiler, etc. If
> you have some sort of organization that maintains it, they can find a
> mechanism to argue over what should be in it and add new things over
> time as needed. The next cycle of the ARM revision can take a look at
> what has "grown" in the library and decide if any of it should be
> declared to be "Standard". If its "Non-Standard" a developer knows it
> might be subject to change in a later release. (No big deal because he
> has source. A new release that changes things need not pick up some
> branch he doesn't want - he can use the source from the older release,
> cobble together anything else he wants, etc.)
>
> The key is that you've got to have some way of saying "I want this new
> thing added to the library and I don't want to wait TEN YEARS (that's
> practically *forever* in computer years!) to get it." I'm not opposed to
> the standard, but you need faster reaction time than this for a library.
>
> MDC
>
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.

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