Re: Future with Ada

["Mark Lundquist" <no.spam@getalife.com>]

"Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com> wrote in message
news:ESsS7.2213$Le3.1716485294@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>[snip...]
> I wish I could agree -- it's fun to design things -- but I don't think it
> will get there.  We'll spend too much time discussing and debating
low-level
> details.

I suppose I would take a position that the details are important, and that
some time should be spent debating them.

A cynic would say that those discussions are doomed to go around endlessly
in circles.  But I don't think that has to happen, and by and large I don't
think that has been the case in the discussions surrounding Ted's
"strawman"...

>  That's why I started this thread by proposing one of the existing
> implementations:  I believe we should pick one and run with it.  Sure,
let's
> discuss the characteristics of the overall library -- I would suggest
> Bertrand Meyer's criteria in his book describing Eiffel's library:
"Reusable
> Software: The Base Object-Oriented Component Libraries" -- but then let's
go
> with it.

If you "just pick one", then it's a foregone conclusion... what's the point
of discussing it (except to thoroughly understand the limitations of the
thing that has been chosen?)  Or if the aim of the discussion is to pick
which library to recommend, then would you not expect the discussion to have
the same character as in the "from scratch" approach -- that is, debating
the details?

-- mark