Re: Container libraries

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

You have a point. I'm not sure that it is a fair critique of Adam Smith, but
it is valid to say that some of the cost associated with software is the
cost of acquiring information. A "better" product would be one that is well
documented - saving the consumer some time in figuring out what the product
does and what uses it might be suited to. But even then, a user has to
invest some time in trying to learn all about it. "Better" might also mean
"more intuitive" so that less time is spent figuring it out. "Better" might
also come from establishing a user base where a font of knowledge is
available. (Gnat, for example, is a "better" product than some other
compilers because there are a large number of people one can tap for
answering questions about it - even if it is not as good in some other
respects.) The better products still rise to the top, but the definition of
"better" in the mind of the consumer isn't always based on some sort of
technical advantage.

I think it would be hard - not impossible - but hard to get a container
library into an annex of the ARM. Mostly, it isn't "better" because it takes
so long to get changes into the ARM and it would suffer from Least Common
Denominator Syndrome. I think the appropriate answer is to get some kind of
"official" consensus on the need for a general library of utility code and
establish a mechanism for building & maintaining it. A library that is
endorsed by some significant portion of the compilers out there and
subsequently shipped (or at minimum, referenced) with the compiler would go
a long way toward establishing something as the basic starting point for
containers for those new to the language and without some specialized needs.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

<tmoran@acm.org> wrote in message
news:mR68a.310596$Ec4.308950@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>   Unfortunately, as this points out in yet another way, the classic Adam
> Smith free market works very poorly for software.  The cost of a piece of
> software to a user is mostly not $, but information costs of trying to
> find out what's available, how well it does what the user wants, and what
> might it do that the user doesn't want.  Something like a brand name or
> Official Ada Annex validation is really needed to cheaply and reliably
> tell the user "this is a good thing".  How to get the creator of container
> package A to agree that container package B should be the "standard", I
> don't know.