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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-16 11:02:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Stephane Richard" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3F7F760E.2020901@comcast.net> <3F8035B0.7080902@noplace.com> <3F816A35.4030108@noplace.com> <3F81FBEC.9010103@noplace.com> <6Ingb.30667$541.13861@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3F82B4A4.5060301@noplace.com> <3F82F527.3020101@noplace.com> <3F846B5E.9080502@comcast.net> <3F855460.6020804@noplace.com> <3F86211B.103@comcast.net> <3F8640CA.6090306@noplace.com> <3F881515.4060305@noplace.com> <3F8E915C.6040003@noplace.com> Subject: Re: Standard Library Interest? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:02:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.44.79.243 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1066327373 129.44.79.243 (Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:02:53 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:02:53 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1006 Date: 2003-10-16T18:02:53+00:00 List-Id: -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote in message news:JnAjb.8680$cT6.421284@news20.bellglobal.com... > Agreed, but *you* are a customer, and *I* am a customer in the > open sourced sense. *We* know what we *want*, and certainly should > be in some position to understand what *others* like *us* want. > > That says to me, that we are favourably positioned for some involvement > here ;-) > > Yes and no. Not everyone is good at designing "libraries" for > general use, and so I would suggest that in a library sense, > some *are* more suitable for others. This of course, depends > upon agreed upon criteria... *** define library? not everyone is good at designing a library or not every is good at designing a set of reusable components? In a library such as CAL things should be as reusable as possible in my book. > > Yes, agreed. If comp.lang.ada history is any indication, it > seems to be a general lack of agreement! Some want: > > - for embedded use (no dynamic memory allocation) > - SPARK like qualities > - C++ like qualities/idioms > - easy to use (few instantiations of generics) > - maximum flexibility (with more use of generics, > but harder to use) > > and there are probably more directions. I would add that there needs > to be a more "general purpose computing" focus, to get Ada into > more mainstream use. *** Agreed, I think what we could do is go by the other "popular" languages, the first thing would be to fill in the gap as in What do the other language have that ada doesn't have? as a first brainstorming reusable or not, but what makes the other languages (any and all of them) popular and give that to Ada. > > But if *we* can't *agree* about what we *want*, then the rest > is a dead end. My memory is foggy about the GRACE components > effort, but what I recall of it was a wide range of opinions > of what it should and shouldn't be. > *** I'm not sure about GRACE, haven't heard enough about the project to say a word, but does it meant hat GRACE didn't have a basis for a good lbirary foundation? Perhaps it did and got lost in the confusion of it's creators :-). As others mentionned before if we dont have to reinvent the wheel we shouldn't :-). Have you looked at my proposed hierarchy I gave elsewhere on this NG? I tried to be as General as possible but detailed enough to give an orentation to the library so to speak....from that tree we could see if anyone's existing code can fit in there and get ready to do the rest. Of course that's a first draft of the hierarchy and should be worked on but it is a first step :-). http://www.adaworld.com/cal/cal_library.txt > I don't have any silver bullet for this problem, but one > suggestion might be to assemble a few respected and interested > parties (individuals that is), and build concensous amongst > themselves. Let them go away and build a spec, a pilot maybe, > and come out of it with a "like it or lump it" approach, > allowing for tweaks. > *** To me that seems like a good approach and I'm all for it. :-) > If there is enough other interested parties, then perhaps a > "competition" of sorts between different teams could be > arranged (I want to be on the green team ;-). Then pick a > winner, and tweak and live with that winner. > > But IMHO, the biggest stumbling block here has always been > about building a common vision. > *** I think we all have a good common vision of what the library should offer that's doesn't seem to be the problem right now. the major problem is starting the work without getting paid so to speak. Like I mentionned elsewhere I'd be lying if I didn't wanna get paid for this effort especially if it's gonna help the vendors. I'm a developer and like all developers, getting paid for something is somewhat motivational :-). But I'm not stopping at that for this project. Ada needs it there's no doubt and I'm willing to give it :-). so you got me as an interested and already involved party :-). *** As for competition I wonder, if time wouldn't be better spent forming teams that could work on different parts of the library instead of competing in the same one as far as acheiving the ultiamate goal goes. Sure if someone looks at a stack algorithm and knows it can be done better then fine do it and suggest it if it's faster/more stable, etc etc...then it gould go in :-). > If you can get all vendors to ship the same thing, no matter > what it was, you can be sure people will use it. After all, the > GNAT packages get used that way. BUT, I don't think this > is likely to happen. *** Not likely, but not impossible especially if our library doesn't conflict with any packages offered by the vendors already. Ultimately we could all associate and become the first 3rd party library vendor for Ada? :-) > > >> What drives the vendors, is what the "users want". Get them using > >> your stuff. Get them wanting more of your stuff. IOW, get the users > >> hooked first (a very time honoured principle). The vendors will > >> fall in line from there. Demand usually drives business. Only in > >> creative things like the Segway (sp?) where people didn't know they > >> wanted one, does it work the other way. But I don't think the > >> vendors are going to have any kind of a surprise for anyone on > >> this front. ;-) > > > > Yes. Absolutely. The vendors will be driven by customer demand. But > > right now, there are a dozen or so libraries out there and absolutely NO > > consensus on which one should be adopted as "The Thing". > > Yes, consensus seems to be the problem. > > > I think > > customers if surveyed, would indicate that they would want *some* kind > > of library. > > That much seems to be agreed on here in comp.lang.ada. > > > They already seem to like getting things like Ada.Strings... > > and Ada.Numerics... But perhaps they can't agree on which of several > > existing ones to adopt. Would you propose throwing Yet Another Ada > > Library into that fray to further divide the pie? If we could agree to > > adopt one of the existing ones as the basis & start building from there, > > fine. Except it hasn't happened. If none of these are "Good Enough" then > > perhaps we can build one that *is* going to meet with acceptance. But > > who's acceptance and what are their criteria? That's what the vendors > > could decide and settle. > > I like the idea of small teams that are capable of consensus, and > the idea that a competition with a winning design should be > adopted. Where this seems to fall down, is that the very people > that should be involved, do not have the time to allocate to this. > > So then, perhaps we should be more open minded to what other > eager teams might be able to produce, with perhaps a senior > member to help guide their efforts in an advisory fashion. > > > This whole thing is a vicious circle. The vendors are waiting for some > > clear mandate from their customers. The customers are waiting to see > > which library will start shipping with their favorite compiler before > > going through the pain of switching out whatever they're using now in > > favor of something else. The standards bodies are waiting for both of > > these groups to settle on something so they can put their Imprimatur on > > it. So who's going to be the first one to get the ball rolling? > > I agree, but I prefer to focus on the reason why nothing is > happening. Lack of consensus, as you've said yourself. So let's > attack that. How do we fix that? > > Smaller groups have a greater chance at consensus. But one group > may not achieve the best result. > > Take the "Ada approach", and allow teams to submit competing > designs. > > The question is, do we have enough interest to develop more than > one team? This to me is the most doubtful factor. > > > I just can't see starting another volunteer effort to charge off and > > build some new library when we have had plenty of that already and it > > hasn't worked. > > Any competition, does not _have_ to start from scratch. Let's > bring on a competiton where new and existing stuff is worked > and re-worked in competition. > > You'll need to keep the final panel of judges small enough, or > some other democratic way of selecting a winner (voting?) As > long as the rules are clearly stated up front, and the parameters > properly planned, any "volunteer effort charging off" can > spur good results (if only by competition). > > The real issue is consensus and enthusiasm. I think the former can > be achieved, but can we get enough participants to push the > competition forwared? > > > Someone with some "clout" has to drive the development > > and I see that as being the vendors. > > We can give "clout" to anyone, any "body" for judging or > voting purposes. The objective is to get general buy in, > and this may be a problem, because I suspect most Ada > users are most interested in embedded processing rather > than for general purpose use (but I would be happy to be > wrong about that). > > If we have a clear winner at the end, then hopefully we > then *know* what we want, and get vendor interest. We > might also have a working implementation in GPL/PD form. > > > If you could get even *ONE* vendor > > to say "All right, we'll go down this path and start shipping this > > library if you guys go off and build something that meets these > > guidelines...." then it stands a chance of getting off of bottom dead > > center. But without even ONE vendor standing up and saying "This is what > > I'd like to see built....", I don't think its going to get very far. > > > > MDC > > I think getting ONE vendor is achievable, and certainly a baby-step. > > Competition anyone? ;-) > > -- > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG > http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg >