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,ac39a12d5faf5b14
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-14 02:52:23 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.netcologne.de!unlisys!news.snafu.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:52:21 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <a9bjgl$sfr$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB94312.5040802@snafu.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1018777941 29179 134.91.4.34 (14 Apr 2002
 09:52:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:52:21 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/800))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22504
Date: 2002-04-14T09:52:21+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Michael Erdmann <Michael.Erdmann@snafu.de> wrote:

: And i am wondering if there could be a processed
: established which brings these things back into the
: standard in order to avoid the reinvention of
: state of the art components.

Monoism isn't compatible with reality I think, starting
at two sexes. If you have two well founded container libraries,
with apparently significant theoretical knowledge visible
in their design and accompanying talk, they may still
have their relative merits. One uses inheritance, the other
doesn't, how do you add (passive) persistency to the other?
One is small and easy to use, the other is big and offers
more containers and algorithms. However, why should the
one not steal (or refuse) ideas from the other? This is
not reinventing.

If program users want different GUIs, this creates
an opportunity to have more people work on the different
implementations, and have users hand out the rewards,
that is payment. They have a right to require this to be
done.

There were times when there were people using very different
computers on their desktops, and it worked at the time, I'm
sure you know. Now most PC users have one type of processor
built into essentially one type of computer. Good or bad?
(Incidentally, one type of compiler (Visual *), together
with one great library/components on one VM
might bring us one type of fpt precision, which is not
the one lurking in most processors. (This is a guess.))

Java is presented to show how to do it, but:
There is no way to have a method indicate
success or failure other than boolean return or an exception.
That is, the famous Java library offers no simple value
wrapper with a set method, except the one in java.text
to store parse positions. No in/out mechanism in that library.

Georg Bauhaus,
 currently creating views of data for different
 media, using diffenrent libraries, because people want that.
 They also pay us.
 It's as entertainging as knowing there are fish, birds,
 wooly animals, snakes, dogs, ...