Re: Standard Library Interest?

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> 
>> Another one, not quite as effective, would be if those who have 
>> written the current competing libraries agreed to do it - and to 
>> promote the winning design in favor of their own old libraries.  If 
>> both the SAL, Grace, LGL and PragmARC (as well as all the one I have 
>> forgotten) web-sites promoted the winning design, it would be very 
>> likely that lazy programmers like me switched.
> 
> I guess I favor evolution, not revolution.  One of the nice features of 
> having a registry like I proposed is that you would be able to easily 
> mix components from multiple libraries without problems.  So I think 
> that having ONE set of naming conventions and consistancy in hierarchies 
> would be a big step forward.  If there is a "best of breed" selection 
> process that results in some of these components being considered THE 
> Ada library, and others considered older versions or alternatives we 
> won't have thirty competing container libraries, but instead will have 
> two or three good alternatives for a much wider set of capabilities.

I fully agree that this is an important first step. No matter what
the design and adoption process is, the naming of the packages and
hierarchy is very important to agree upon.

> This is not to say that there won't eventually be one way to do some 
> things, just that if we define a good process that will last for a 
> decade or so, we will be much better off than with one more unmaintained 
> library.

I fully agree with this.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg