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: 2002-04-16 22:05:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newspeer.monmouth.com!peer.news.zetnet.net!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: Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:57:06 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB77A6B.5090504@snafu.de> <184076622a7c648f157c56e417bd86d4.48257@mygate.mailgate.org> <3CB9375F.8040904@snafu.de> <3CBC56F0.9050300@snafu.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1018979828 20152 136.170.200.133 (16 Apr 2002 17:57:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Apr 2002 17:57:08 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:22634 Date: 2002-04-16T17:57:08+00:00 List-Id: "Michael Erdmann" wrote in message news:3CBC56F0.9050300@snafu.de... > > Yes you may always want to change something, but using standard > components means reliability by beening conservative even if > you are loosing elegance. > I'm not arguing against standards. I'm arguing in favor of a process that might mean a fresh release once a quarter that incorporates the latest and greatest ideas and extensions. You'd want to keep your interfaces as stable as possible, but allow for a process that would allow fixes, improvements and new things to enter into it (and be included in vendor distributions) without waiting for a ten-year language-revision-cycle to happen. > > I dont think that we need the vendors this mutch, most of the popular > open source software is distributed without them (thanks to sites > as sourceforge etc..), > Sure. You can always go put yet another container library out on the net somewhere and probably find a fair number of takers who will "standardize" on your particular library for their own development. (How many are out there as we speak?) The trick is to get one of the many fine container libraries that exist or may one day exist to be the one that everybody uses. If the vendors aren't in on it and don't include it along with their compiler distribution such that everyone knows they could either use what is there or go their own way and not be portable, then you've got the situation we have now: Lots of fine container libraries available and none of them The Standard. (I use container libraries just as an example. The same applies to any other collection of components/tools one might care to discuss.) That's why I think the vendors have to be behind it. If the same thing comes with (almost) every compiler, then it *is* the standard regardless of it being in the ARM or not. (I can always come up with Marin.Strings.Fixed and it might be fine for my needs, but would people use it if they new all they had to do was go: "with Ada.Strings.Fixed;" and have something everyone knew about and understood?) > > - Propose to ISO > Maybe. One day. But I still think that's asking for a lot of cost and time that would likely kill something in the process. > But this is nothing new, this is the typical open source process as > we know it, the only difference is the last step. I think this is > your second tier idea. May be it is possible to setup a new way of > communication between the public and the ISO WG making the entry > more easier for us. Or maybe it would be a good idea if ISO acts > more proactive by asking the comminity for entires on certain issues > (e.g. containers etc..)! > My second tier idea is simply some process for producing an agreed-upon language extension (library, not syntax/semantics) that gets acceptance by the vendors and the community at large. Its hard enough to get an agreement in an informal setting (we've tried here before, right? :-) that I think anything that starts moving towards "Let's go get ISO to accept it..." is going to guarantee failure. I'm suggesting that we'd be far better off setting the goals to something a little more achievable and see where it goes. If one day, it makes it back into ISO, fine. But I think just getting it into common usage is enough of a windmill to tilt at. :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com