Re: Ada Component Registry proposal

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

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3963 bytes --]

Yeah, it's a step in the right direction :-).   I just emailed him again to
arrange another phone call if he can.  I also stated questions and issues
(as in what we'd like from vendors in general).  so he can answer them if he
can't call me...so we'll see tomorrow or tuesday :-).

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


"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3F9BCDE0.1070704@noplace.com...
> Well, that's something. ACT is probably the most active in enhancing
> their Ada product - I don't know what the other vendors are up to or if
> they anticipate making any significant enhancements to their compiler at
> all. If ACT were driving it and it was available for other vendors to
> adopt, that might be a suitable way to go.
>
> It might be a good idea to get a read on the relative interest of other
> vendors and some fix on how actively they are developing their compiler.
> That's where the ARG could be useful - if a vendor has a representative
> on the ARG, they are probably interested in Ada's future, have some
> willingness to extend their Ada product and could be asked to comment on
>   the interest in a library. If they don't have a representative on the
> ARG, then its a good bet they aren't terribly interested in any future
> enhancements to their Ada compiler - if they don't care enough about
> major syntactic/semantic changes to Ada, then they almost certainly
> won't care about a relatively lesser thing like a library.
>
> One other thing the ARG would be good for - comment on what is already
> planned or likely to be planned for the next issue of Ada. I had heard
> talk of a file system interface package and probably some additional
> things, but I don't know that there is a current plan to have any sort
> of containers. They might conceivably comment on two other issues: 1) If
> Ada were to get a CAL, what should the first area(s) of priority be?
> (Containers? Math? Network? OS?...) 2) Are there any criteria they would
> find important in ultimately accepting or rejecting a CAL as being "part
> of Ada"? (Style issues? Domain issues? Platform issues? - Basically what
> sorts of things might get the CAL shot down and rejected.)
>
> Since we have an ARG member (or two, or three...) listening in - maybe
> there's some comment? Say something to me off line if you'd prefer to
> discuss it out of the public eye. (See my return address in the .SIG)
>
> MDC
>
> Stephane Richard wrote:
> > Well I talked to ACT quickly, I'm still waiting for a phone call which
it
> > looks like I'll have to remind them of it seems :-).  But nonetheless,
they
> > did recognize the effort, they do follow c.l.a. pretty good, now to wait
for
> > em to say something.  but I need to talk to that dude first.  Guess at
the
> > time it was too early to pronounce themselves but they didn't
categorically
> > reject it either (so far).  Maybe all they are waiting for is something
to
> > look at (hence what Robert is doing) so they can see how it is planned
to
> > work, give them a basis of an idea of what it might look like and as
Robert
> > said how easily usable it is as far as concepts goes.
> >
> > I'll get in touch with them again monday probably.
> >
>
>
> -- 
> ======================================================================
> Marin David Condic
> I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
> My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm
>
> Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g
>
>      "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is
>      basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and
>      then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a
>      memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The
>      users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept
>      sedated"
>
>          --  Marin D. Condic
> ======================================================================
>