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 00:15:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.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> <9vdp9f$9vo$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 08:15:06 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.127.202.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1008576906 204.127.202.214 (Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:15:06 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:15:06 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17982 Date: 2001-12-17T08:15:06+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:9vdp9f$9vo$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > > "Pat Rogers" wrote in message > news:ESsS7.2213$Le3.1716485294@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > > > 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. 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. > > > I understand your point, but look at how much resistance there was to most > of the existing container libraries? What is already out there seemed to > have flaws that sufficient numbers of people found strongly objectionable. Yes, exactly! I think you have a good feel for the issues here. Remember, even the adoption of the C++ STL was attended with controversy, and this was something with very high goals. AIR, the controversies had to do with how big the STL would be (there was a lot more Stepanov wanted, but it didn't make the "size" cut), and also with the changes required to the C++ language itself (it helped STL to have an influential champion -- Strousrup! -- on the standardization committee). > If it didn't get adopted by unilateral imposition, its tough to get a > consensus. (I'd bet that if GNAT came bundled with the BC's, people would > still object - but would likely use it anyway.) Right, and that is precisely the kind of standard (de factor or de jure) for a foundation library that we do *not* want to have. Not something that people use because it's the path of least resistance, but then complain about. I want to provide something that will not give programmers reason to complain. I think it's possible. If the aim is to improve the overall appeal of the whole Ada "package" -- the attractiveness of Ada as a solution -- then choosing something on the basis of convenience will not do. Expedite the aim, not just quickness. Even if something is merely a "de facto standard", it must be every bit as good as to be in the "Real Standard". Perhaps that, is the reason there is no current "de facto standard" -- not just that nobody has bothered to ring up the compiler vendors and ask them to bundle something. Ehud Lamm has suggested that the perfect library for Ada has not been written yet. I suspect that this is true, and in that light the current lack of a standard is actually a good thing, as are the debates that we have about all these issues. -- mark