Re: Grace and Maps (was Re: Development process in the Ada community)

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

"Jeffrey Carter" <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message
news:3CC1BD77.EFDD044C@acm.org...
>
> No, it wouldn't be fair, at least not from my perspective. But it would
> be a good start, so I have no objection to it.
>
Note that the question is more one about generality. I certainly accept that
there *are* people who use Ada in realtime apps where performance &
determinism & possibly task safety would be a critical concern. Just more of
an issue of "who is in the majority" so we can do the Greatest Good For The
Greatest Number. (Also, I don't think that the Grace list package as it
stands at the moment wouldn't be useful in realtime - just that it might not
be applicable without careful analysis & for a number of cases, fixed or
bounded versions might be better. They can always be added if there seems to
be a crying need.)


>
> While I agree with this, if Grace becomes accepted, and we submit it to
> the ARG as has been requested on the Ada-Comment mailing list, then it
> would become part of the Ada.* hierarchy, so I suggest that consistency
> with those naming conventions would be a Good Thing.
>
I'd actually be opposed to getting it into the Ada.* tree. A couple of
reasons: First, this is going to exist as a stand alone tree initially
because you can't add it to the Ada.* tree without being the compiler. Once
it starts showing up in people's code as "Grace.Lists..." nobody is going to
want to go change their existing code to make it all "Ada.Grace.Lists...."
My experience with software is that early decisions about structure are
something you have to live with for a very long time, so you'd better
consider them carefully.

My second reason is that if this collection of stuff should ever get put
under the Ada.* tree, you would instantly make it very difficult to extend
and enhance with future ideas. You'd be up against the inability to modify
anything in the Ada.* tree without being the compiler, plus you'd be up
against all sorts of political forces lobbying for stability and fighting
against an ISO bureaucracy, etc. etc. etc. Far better it should stand on its
own so that it can be treated as a "Convention" rather than a "Standard" and
remain far more flexible & extensible. A library such as this needs to be
enhanced with a fairly rapid product cycle or we would be lagging behind
other languages instead of taking the lead.

That's my take on it anyway. It would be good to know what the rest of the
interested parties think on it - should Grace aim for inclusion in the Ada.*
tree and become part of the ARM? (Can it be part of the ARM and remain
flexible with a fast update cycle?) Or should it aim to be a sideline
convention?

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com