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,a1ce307c10055549 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-12 10:17:48 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!beamish.news.atl.earthlink.net!news.atl.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: IBM Acquires Rational Ada Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:17:12 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: References: <3DF1615C.7AAAC86E@adaworks.com> <3DF1B042.6603DDDE@easystreet.com> <3DF2A483.EC512CDF@adaworks.com> <8db3d6c8.0212091445.12594821@posting.google.com> <3DF628C4.7090607@cogeco.ca> <3DF6653D.3030603@cogeco.ca> <8db3d6c8.0212101850.51506572@posting.google.com> <3DF7901C.3000006@acm.org> <1039712678.466533@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.bd.42 X-Server-Date: 12 Dec 2002 18:17:48 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31754 Date: 2002-12-12T18:17:48+00:00 List-Id: Exactly, 100% the point. Ada seems to be so busy coming up with a "perfect" answer that it misses the point - even a bad answer is better than *no* answer. If the Ada community was willing to gather under the auspices of SIGAda or some other organ and declare that some library of containers (existing, or to be developed) was "The Conventional Answer" and started delivering Ada with it, then Ada would have containers by now and not be lagging behind C++ in that respect. Regularly working on that library to extend and enhance it would bring Ada ahead of C++ in that regard. The fact that the best we seem to be able to do with respect to libraries is to raise the issue as an "Ada0x" standards issue is symptomatic of why Ada has a problem catching on with the masses. A useful, leverage building capability is going to take *years* to get in place and even then will probably only address some small fraction of the needs based on least-common-denominator factors. Why can't we find a mechanism to get things like this into "Conventional Ada" more quickly? MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "I'd trade it all for just a little more" -- Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10] ====================================================================== Hyman Rosen wrote in message news:1039712678.466533@master.nyc.kbcfp.com... > > Here's what Scott Meyers has to say in his preface to _Effective STL_: > > > Then I began to notice something that took me by surprise. Despite > the portability problems, despite the dismal documentation, despite > the compiler diagnostics resembling transmission line noise, many > of my consulting clients were using the STL anyway. Furthermore, > they weren't just playing with it, they were using it in production > code! That was a revelation. I knew that the STL featured an elegant > design, but any library where programmers are willing to endure > portability headaches, poor documentation, and incomprehensible error > messages has a lot more going for it than just good design. For an > increasingly large number of professional programmers, I realized, > even a bad implementation of the STL was preferable to no implementation > at all. >