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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-17 00:15:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <9v57u1$mfb$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9v74ov014bc@drn.newsguy.com> <9vb24v$7fg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Subject: Re: Future with Ada X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:15:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.127.202.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc52 1008576905 204.127.202.214 (Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:15:05 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:15:05 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17981 Date: 2001-12-17T08:15:05+00:00 List-Id: "Pat Rogers" wrote in message news:ESsS7.2213$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