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 00:15:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.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$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Subject: Re: Future with Ada X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:15:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.127.202.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc51 1008576907 204.127.202.214 (Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:15:07 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 08:15:07 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17983 Date: 2001-12-17T08:15:07+00:00 List-Id: "Pat Rogers" wrote in message news:YxvS7.2239$_h.1737012240@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > "Marin David Condic" wrote in > message news:9vdp9f$9vo$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > > > > 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. > > My impression was that most of those doing the objecting were those with > "competing" libraries. That might be wrong, but it looked that way from > a slight distance (by which I mean I didn't read absolutely all the > relevant posts). Sure, those of us who've spent time developing code > and thinking about the subject therefore have opinions that are both > more passionate and qualified, but it doesn't seem to me to be a lot of > people overall. Do you wish there were *more* people with strong opinions about these things? :-) Maybe I'm getting you wrong, but it seems as though you are saying that the people who actually care about how this stuff works are an obstruction to the process... :-) > > > 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.) > > Exactly my point -- we cannot please everybody, completely, under any > circumstances. With all respect, I feel this is a cop-out. I firmly believe that an Ada foundation library with collections (and more), with which everybody *will* be genuinely pleased, *can* be written. It just has not been -- yet. > So let's pick one and as a group start asking the > vendors to provide them. We have reason to believe the vendors will > respond. I have a hard time believing that some kind of petition from a handful of comp.lang.ada readers is going to induce the Ada vendors to bundle some library. That does not constitute a business "demand". How many compiler licenses do you suppose are on the table over this? :-) I must say that I'm quite opposed to the "pick one and go with it idea", and I really wish that you would reconsider recommending it. I think we can do better than that, and that's what some of us here are trying to do. Time is not of the essence. As much as I believe it is vital for Ada to have a strong foundation library, it has survived this long without one, and it's not going anywhere. If it takes months to produce something satisfactory, that is OK. -- mark