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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no 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: 2002-04-15 20:39:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.64.68.27!newsgate.cistron.nl!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:19:07 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3CB94312.5040802@snafu.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1018891148 11239 136.170.200.133 (15 Apr 2002 17:19:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Apr 2002 17:19:08 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22581 Date: 2002-04-15T17:19:08+00:00 List-Id: I certainly wouldn't mind at all adopting an existing solution as the starting point for a standard. The problem is quite often that everybody has a different idea about what they want and short of having a solution unilaterally imposed on them, agreement isn't likely. If Claw could evolve into a generic interface for GUI building (rather than be Windows specific) then I have no objection to it. It might even be fair to say "Here's the 'official' Ada interface to Windows..." and see if it could migrate elsewhere at a later point. But if it were to stand a chance of success, the best way I can think of it getting accepted would be if it were shipped with most of the Ada compilers out there so that the developer's thinking would have to be: "Well, I may not like it, but its here and certainly a lot easier to take advantage of than to roll my own or go looking for an alternative..." MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com wrote in message news:zPlu8.90$2a2.158913722@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > > Why is it that the available solutions are a mile wide but an inch deep? > Everybody wants to build an alternative to X, but nobody wants to build on > top of X. What are the rewards/difficulties of building a new alternative > to X? What are the rewards/difficulties of building something more complex > that -uses- X? Apparently the latter is worse. > > As Randy Brukardt noted the other day, the original idea for Claw "was to > create a de facto standard, make a subset freely available, and eventually > put the binding into the public domain to be a standard." But it didn't > happen. Recently someone complained that Claw didn't currently support > several features he needs. Nobody, to my knowledge, has added support for > X to Claw, but multiple people have created alternative Windows bindings, > none of which has become a standard, and none of which supports the > features that writer needed. So he plans to use C++. The same for > "a lot of open source software solutions covering ..." > > Given all the time in the world, it's a fine thing to "let 100 flowers > bloom" and explore all the alternative ways of doing X. That does not get > you beyond X, however.