* Standard Library Interest? @ 2003-10-05 0:09 chris 2003-10-05 1:38 ` Robert I. Eachus ` (5 more replies) 0 siblings, 6 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: chris @ 2003-10-05 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi, Recent discussions with Marin David Condic /suggest/ the development of some kind of standard library independant of the ARM, but hopefully endorsed by vendors and the ARG, would be a worthwhile endeavour. Assuming such a library could be created and was attractive to the community, vendors and the ARG what would people want of such a library? What would you want to see available that wasn't going to feature in the next language revision and didn't quite fit with the long revision times for the standard? What would you like available that was portable across platforms for software development? I wasn't going to suggest anything as a) I don't want to put words/ideas in peoples' mouths/heads and b) my interests are highly multimedia orientated but perhaps including some of the following: XML support Unicode processing library Support for common image formats* Support for common audio formats and audio playback* (free formats) *with the ability to extend support for other formats. XML and Unicode support don't quite fit within the language standard because they change more frequently, but IMO it'd be nice to have some standardised support for both of these things. Note with unicode I am thinking about things like normalisation, etc. The idea is to have something that developers can look to on compilers for general software development, particularly on the desktop. If developers need it, it will be there and they don't have to look around as much for the facilities they need. So, what facilities do you need that perhaps could go in such a library? Chris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 0:09 Standard Library Interest? chris @ 2003-10-05 1:38 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 11:44 ` chris ` (2 more replies) 2003-10-05 14:49 ` Martin Krischik ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-05 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw) chris wrote: > XML and Unicode support don't quite fit within the language standard > because they change more frequently, but IMO it'd be nice to have some > standardised support for both of these things. Note with unicode I am > thinking about things like normalisation, etc. Huh? Read the RM: <i>The predefined type Wide_Character is a character type whose values correspond to the 65536 code positions of the ISO 10646 Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP). Each of the graphic characters of the BMP has a corresponding character_literal in Wide_Character. The first 256 values of Wide_Character have the same character_literal or language-defined name as defined for Character. The last 2 values of Wide_Character correspond to the nongraphic positions FFFE and FFFF of the BMP, and are assigned the language-defined names FFFE and FFFF. As with the other language-defined names for nongraphic characters, the names FFFE and FFFF are usable only with the attributes (Wide_)Image and (Wide_)Value; they are not usable as enumeration literals. All other values of Wide_Character are considered graphic characters, and have a corresponding character_literal.</i> The BMP character set is identical to Unicode. There are additional functions which are part of the Unicode definition. Some of them can be found in A.3.2 and A.4.7. If there is something you think should be added, let me know. (I already have a "little list" for Ada 0Y.) Also, don't get misled by some people (including me! ;-) saying that the Ada standard has a slow revision cycle. Technically, the standard is considered for revision every five years, but in practice if there are problems, the ARG will fix them as soon as possible. Unicode/ISO10646 is a perfect case in point. I could tell you the (highly boring) changes that have been made in ISO 10646 and Unicode since they converged. (If you are really interested, look here: http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ Just to give you a flavor: "1,226 new character assignments were made to the Unicode Standard, Version 4.0 (over and above what was in Unicode 3.2). These additions include currency symbols, additional Latin and Cyrillic characters, the Limbu and Tai Le scripts; Yijing Hexagram symbols, Khmer symbols, Linear B syllables and ideograms, Cypriot, Ugaritic, and a new block of variation selectors (especially for future CJK variants). Double diacritic characters were added for dictionary use." -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 1:38 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-05 11:44 ` chris 2003-10-05 15:16 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 17:41 ` Georg Bauhaus 2 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: chris @ 2003-10-05 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus wrote: > The BMP character set is identical to Unicode. There are additional > functions which are part of the Unicode definition. Some of them can be > found in A.3.2 and A.4.7. If there is something you think should be > added, let me know. (I already have a "little list" for Ada 0Y.) Also, > don't get misled by some people (including me! ;-) saying that the Ada > standard has a slow revision cycle. Technically, the standard is > considered for revision every five years, but in practice if there are > problems, the ARG will fix them as soon as possible. I do know that and have seen the ARG fix things in the past, but for things that are a bit of a moving target (like XML) it'd be best to keep them out the standard. Unicode wasn't the best suggestion for something like this. > Unicode/ISO10646 > is a perfect case in point. I could tell you the (highly boring) > changes that have been made in ISO 10646 and Unicode since they > converged. (If you are really interested, look here: > http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ I knew the language had some support for unicode, but I was thinking of routines for normalising strings which is useful for simple comparisons on unicode strings. I will look at A.3.2 and A.4.7 and explore a bit more, see what's *really* there. Chris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 1:38 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 11:44 ` chris @ 2003-10-05 15:16 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 16:40 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 19:22 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-05 17:41 ` Georg Bauhaus 2 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Yes, its true that the ARG will fix problems, but please be fair about it. The ARG wouldn't, for example, discover that Java just added a library branch to cover Computational Fluid Dynamics that was proving to be wildly popular and decide that this was a "problem" for Ada and release a CFD library of their own within 6 months. So realistically, you're looking at a ten year cycle before a new library branch could be added. Also, it might be technically true that the language comes up for revision review on a 5 year cycle, but given that it is almost 2004, we'd have Ada83..Ada95..Ada04 - looks pretty much like 10 years to me, plus or minus a little. So while the review of Ada95 should have started in 2000, it isn't at all realistic to presume that we're going to start the next review cycle in 2005 when we have not yet got Ada0x out the door. I'm not criticizing the ARG or its efforts or the value of the standard. It definitely *needs* some stability and a long review cycle and careful consideration given to each item included in it and extreme detail outlined to make each item validatable. What I'm saying is that when you want to provide features or functionality that doesn't require a revision of the compiler and you want to react quickly to market demands, the standard is *not* the place to go because it simply takes too long. Hence my appeal to get a library outside of the ARM. MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > standard has a slow revision cycle. Technically, the standard is > considered for revision every five years, but in practice if there are > problems, the ARG will fix them as soon as possible. Unicode/ISO10646 -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 15:16 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 16:40 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 19:22 ` Martin Dowie 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-05 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Also, it might be technically true that the language comes up for > revision review on a 5 year cycle, but given that it is almost 2004, > we'd have Ada83..Ada95..Ada04 - looks pretty much like 10 years to me, > plus or minus a little. So while the review of Ada95 should have started > in 2000, it isn't at all realistic to presume that we're going to start > the next review cycle in 2005 when we have not yet got Ada0x out the door. Yes, the intention is to only make significant changes every other cycle. But don't let that trick you into ignoring the fact that the standard has changed since 1995. Get a copy of Technical Corrigendum 1 (ISO/IEC 8652:1995/COR1:2000, or look at it on line. Found it: http://www.ada-auth.org/ai-files/grab_bag/Corrigendum.html I think you will find that even though this was an official ISO revision of the standard in 2000, there is not much in their to get excited about. (But the ARG does anyway, or pretends to. ;-) > I'm not criticizing the ARG or its efforts or the value of the standard. > It definitely *needs* some stability and a long review cycle and careful > consideration given to each item included in it and extreme detail > outlined to make each item validatable. What I'm saying is that when you > want to provide features or functionality that doesn't require a > revision of the compiler and you want to react quickly to market > demands, the standard is *not* the place to go because it simply takes > too long. Hence my appeal to get a library outside of the ARM. Believe me, I am NOT saying that you shouldn't do exactly that. Packages will only get added to the standard if they are available and widely used. So if you want something added, you need to get a version out and in use. Especially if you think that the packages should be in the standard. I am just trying to make clear that there is a normal progression. Including something in the standard too soon is wrong, and deciding on theorectical grounds that something should never be in the standard is just as wrong. When things like database interfaces are in flux and there is no agreement on how it should be done--they don't belong in the standard. The various contending approaches belong in vendor supplied packages. When the user base finds the differences in naming conventions more troubling than the differences in approach between the implementions, then it is time for standardization. And throughout this process of evolution, users will gripe. It is their nature. Seriously, listening to gripes is part of the ARG's job, and there will always be gripes. Our job is to listen to the gripers, and also listen to the silence from those who are satisfied with the current situation. Then only make changes that reduce the overall griping level. Oh, and realize that we are all frustrated language developers. The fun part of the job for all of us is when we do get to commit language design. The restraint we have to intellectualy accept is part of the price. Just look at Tucker's current proposal to change the freezing rules for generics to see this tension manifest. I'm tempted to say that every ARG member has said that Tucker's proposal is way to radical, then gone ahead and made a different radical proposal of their own. ;-) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 15:16 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 16:40 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-05 19:22 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 13:12 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-05 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F8035B0.7080902@noplace.com... > Also, it might be technically true that the language comes up for > revision review on a 5 year cycle, but given that it is almost 2004, > we'd have Ada83..Ada95..Ada04 - looks pretty much like 10 years to me, > plus or minus a little. So while the review of Ada95 should have started > in 2000, it isn't at all realistic to presume that we're going to start > the next review cycle in 2005 when we have not yet got Ada0x out the door. But we did have the TC in 2000 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 19:22 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-06 13:12 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 17:09 ` Martin Dowie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw) I didn't say you didn't. What I said was that Ada has a 10 year cycle (more or less) for revising the standard. Do you think it likely that the next revision review will start in 2005 given that there is, as of yet, no Ada0x and at best it would be Ada04? Hence, I take exception to the notion that there is really a 5 year cycle. Its more like 5 years *after* a language standard has been issued a new review will be initiated. But then you've got maybe another 5 years of reviewing, etc., before the *next* standard would be issued. Mind you, I'm not being critical or trying to say it is a bad thing. A standard needs some kind of stability or the compiler writers would be shooting at a moving target and the developers would have no clue as to what they could count on. What I *am* saying is that if Ada is going to have some kind of Conventional Ada Library full of tools, that the Ada language standard is the entirely wrong place to put it. (At least initially - the standard could accept parts of it down the road if it was viewed as stable and something that belonged in the standard.) A library needs to be able to be revised and extended *QUICKLY* (relative to the standard - say quarterly or semi-annualy) in order to react to rapidly changing events in the computer biz. If someone comes up with a new communication interface or file format or internet protocol and your library is supporting the general concept around that, you need to make additions or changes to your library to accommodate it or you're dead in the water with a useless product. If someone comes up with some whiz-bang new Internet thingie and Ada says "Yeah, that's cool. We'll have an interface for that in *TEN YEARS* when the new ARM comes out..." what will the users do? They'll go to Java or C++ or whoever is the first one to give them the interface. Ada has *got* to find a way to provide lots more utility to the end-user and it needs to do so *quickly*. If it isn't with a Conventional Ada Library, then make it something else. Basically, I think we end up in the dustbin of history if we don't find a way to make Ada more useful and react quickly to customer demands. The users *have* and *will* go elsewhere if you don't provide what they want. MDC Martin Dowie wrote: > > > But we did have the TC in 2000 > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 13:12 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 17:09 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 23:34 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-06 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F816A35.4030108@noplace.com... > What I *am* saying is that if Ada is going to have some kind of > Conventional Ada Library full of tools, that the Ada language standard > is the entirely wrong place to put it. (At least initially - the Secondary standards have already been tried and I don't think they have been very successful, e.g. ISO/IEC 13813. It seems that the Ada community isn't active enough to go and root out and use other things if it's not in the RM, it doesn't exist! I hope that the APIWG can get some momentum behind it and we need to promote it more in cla. Just my $0.02 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 17:09 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-06 23:34 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 0:23 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw) O.K. Maybe we have a difference of opinion, but that's all right. I'm willing to be persuaded, but I think that *some* scheme for a library is a good thing. How would you address the concern that if you make it part of the standard, it is etched in stone and you can't do anything about adding to it or fixing it for ten years? How would you create a climate wherein a developer can count on getting *something* but isn't frozen out of new developments, good ideas, enhancements, etc.? You can have an absolute standard that is good for stability or you can have a totally fluid environment that reacts quickly to changes. Somewhere in the middle should be a useful compromise. MDC Martin Dowie wrote: > > Secondary standards have already been tried and I don't think they > have been very successful, e.g. ISO/IEC 13813. > > It seems that the Ada community isn't active enough to go and root > out and use other things if it's not in the RM, it doesn't exist! > > I hope that the APIWG can get some momentum behind it and we > need to promote it more in cla. > > Just my $0.02 > > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 23:34 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-07 0:23 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-07 12:42 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2083 bytes --] "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F81FBEC.9010103@noplace.com... > O.K. Maybe we have a difference of opinion, but that's all right. I'm > willing to be persuaded, but I think that *some* scheme for a library is > a good thing. How would you address the concern that if you make it part > of the standard, it is etched in stone and you can't do anything about > adding to it or fixing it for ten years? How would you create a climate > wherein a developer can count on getting *something* but isn't frozen > out of new developments, good ideas, enhancements, etc.? > > You can have an absolute standard that is good for stability or you can > have a totally fluid environment that reacts quickly to changes. > Somewhere in the middle should be a useful compromise. > > MDC > Maybe I read it wrong, but to me what should be in the ARM as a standard shouldn't define the end of life, but how life should begin (cheap attempt at a metaphore here...awaiting flying tomatoes ;-). By that I mean that the standard from what I've seen don't tell you the end of the language's possibilities, but ranther the beginning of them, on which to build enhancements. And that any addition to the standard should reflect the definition of the language itself. Let's take an example here, say we wanted to adda GUI library to Ada as a standard, I would be more tempted to add say wxWindows, or maybe GTK ada because the follow in the phylosophy of ada as being multiplatform, expandable, etc etc..if we were to code our own GUI library independant of all existing ones, it would have to be exactly the same, multiplatform, expandable, and everything else that is expected of Ada. This may not be the best example, but it is an example that reflects my thoughts :-). To me that's what a standard should define, and it is what it defines so far, not the end of things, but their beginnings. As such, of course a good strong stable foundation is always better to build on than a weak one. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 0:23 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 12:42 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 13:17 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-07 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) All right. But this would not be incompatible with my notion of having a Conventional Ada Library. Suppose that the ARM defines a package called CAL and underneath it, the arm defines some things like CAL.Containers and CAL.OS_Iterface, etc. Maybe these are stable enough to be in the ARM (I doubt it, but lets accept that for a moment). So long as the ARM allows the extension of this package, then you've got an "Official" ballpark in which to play. (Note that you are not allowed to modify or extend the package Ada - so this is the dead-wrong place in which to put a library.) So once you have this CAL package tree defined and allowed to be extended, you've got the basis for a library. The ARG, vendors, SIGAda, etc, could come up with a reference implementation of it and provide it in source to everyone/anyone - ship it along with the compiler, etc. If you have some sort of organization that maintains it, they can find a mechanism to argue over what should be in it and add new things over time as needed. The next cycle of the ARM revision can take a look at what has "grown" in the library and decide if any of it should be declared to be "Standard". If its "Non-Standard" a developer knows it might be subject to change in a later release. (No big deal because he has source. A new release that changes things need not pick up some branch he doesn't want - he can use the source from the older release, cobble together anything else he wants, etc.) The key is that you've got to have some way of saying "I want this new thing added to the library and I don't want to wait TEN YEARS (that's practically *forever* in computer years!) to get it." I'm not opposed to the standard, but you need faster reaction time than this for a library. MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > > > Maybe I read it wrong, but to me what should be in the ARM as a standard > shouldn't define the end of life, but how life should begin (cheap attempt > at a metaphore here...awaiting flying tomatoes ;-). > > By that I mean that the standard from what I've seen don't tell you the end > of the language's possibilities, but ranther the beginning of them, on which > to build enhancements. And that any addition to the standard should reflect > the definition of the language itself. > > Let's take an example here, say we wanted to adda GUI library to Ada as a > standard, I would be more tempted to add say wxWindows, or maybe GTK ada > because the follow in the phylosophy of ada as being multiplatform, > expandable, etc etc..if we were to code our own GUI library independant of > all existing ones, it would have to be exactly the same, multiplatform, > expandable, and everything else that is expected of Ada. This may not be > the best example, but it is an example that reflects my thoughts :-). > > To me that's what a standard should define, and it is what it defines so > far, not the end of things, but their beginnings. As such, of course a good > strong stable foundation is always better to build on than a weak one. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 12:42 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-07 13:17 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-07 17:17 ` Marin David Condic [not found] ` <8d6b51-0u3.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3343 bytes --] "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F82B4A4.5060301@noplace.com... > All right. But this would not be incompatible with my notion of having a > Conventional Ada Library. Suppose that the ARM defines a package called > CAL and underneath it, the arm defines some things like CAL.Containers > and CAL.OS_Iterface, etc. Maybe these are stable enough to be in the ARM > (I doubt it, but lets accept that for a moment). So long as the ARM > allows the extension of this package, then you've got an "Official" > ballpark in which to play. (Note that you are not allowed to modify or > extend the package Ada - so this is the dead-wrong place in which to put > a library.) > > So once you have this CAL package tree defined and allowed to be > extended, you've got the basis for a library. The ARG, vendors, SIGAda, > etc, could come up with a reference implementation of it and provide it > in source to everyone/anyone - ship it along with the compiler, etc. If > you have some sort of organization that maintains it, they can find a > mechanism to argue over what should be in it and add new things over > time as needed. The next cycle of the ARM revision can take a look at > what has "grown" in the library and decide if any of it should be > declared to be "Standard". If its "Non-Standard" a developer knows it > might be subject to change in a later release. (No big deal because he > has source. A new release that changes things need not pick up some > branch he doesn't want - he can use the source from the older release, > cobble together anything else he wants, etc.) > > The key is that you've got to have some way of saying "I want this new > thing added to the library and I don't want to wait TEN YEARS (that's > practically *forever* in computer years!) to get it." I'm not opposed to > the standard, but you need faster reaction time than this for a library. > > MDC > Well yes 10 years is a long time....We'd need something like the Linux system. By that I mean. Some one develops a new thing, suggests it to makers of Ada (like in linux they give it to the makers of linux) for acceptance into the next release (which typically doesn't take 10 years in most cases). by the end of 10 years if enough makers of Ada have it as part of their compiler then the revision can't overlook it. if it's that popular aside some terminology changes (say you didn't use the underscore in your names and Ada guidelines recommend you should, etc etc). then it gets added into the next revision..... I do agree that 10 years is a very long time and that might be part of the reason which slows down Ada's progress on the popularity charts. it's strength (truely standard language) is also it's qeakness (way too long revision period). I would say either the revisions need to be closer together (a year max instead of 10 years) or allow a principle of ammendment to the standard that could be revised periodically and whatever makes it to that revision would be part of the "official revisison". or some system so that we dont have to wait that long. hence the standard commity either need to be more present and accessible to the Ada community, or form a team of members or non members that could do this regular interval thing. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 13:17 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 17:17 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 17:42 ` Larry Hazel 2003-10-07 18:19 ` Martin Dowie [not found] ` <8d6b51-0u3.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-07 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Well, yes, that's pretty much compatible with the idea I've been putting forward. If you have some group or organization overseeing some updatable library, people could contribute what they thought would be useful. The organization could arrive at some decision about its suitability and include it if it seemed to warrant it. (They would be playing the job of "Editor/Publisher" - work with a developer to get something suitable and add it to the next scheduled release as deemed necessary. That's how you'd resolve style issues and other things you might care about, like documentation.) You'd have a release cycle with sufficient frequency to give the language a means of rapidly reacting to a changing world without locking something into the ARM that might prove to be a "Bad Idea" or unstable or unproven. You get a more market-driven language capability without absolute standardization (the ARM) or absolute chaos (grabbing random libraries from the Internet.) If the vendors are on board with it, they pick up new releases and distribute them with their compilers. They'd have the final say about what they wanted to accept. They'd be responsible if there were any portability issues to resolve. (Hopefully, few.) Ultimately pieces that are added might or might not make it into the ARM, but so what? You've got source code and if you like it, you use it with some guarantee that it is common across implementations. I don't see how this is undesirable. You get more functionality in a portable and standard way. Long term, it may be an ARM feature if it is popular and stable enough. MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > > Well yes 10 years is a long time....We'd need something like the Linux > system. By that I mean. Some one develops a new thing, suggests it to > makers of Ada (like in linux they give it to the makers of linux) for > acceptance into the next release (which typically doesn't take 10 years in > most cases). by the end of 10 years if enough makers of Ada have it as part > of their compiler then the revision can't overlook it. if it's that popular > aside some terminology changes (say you didn't use the underscore in your > names and Ada guidelines recommend you should, etc etc). then it gets added > into the next revision..... > > I do agree that 10 years is a very long time and that might be part of the > reason which slows down Ada's progress on the popularity charts. it's > strength (truely standard language) is also it's qeakness (way too long > revision period). I would say either the revisions need to be closer > together (a year max instead of 10 years) or allow a principle of ammendment > to the standard that could be revised periodically and whatever makes it to > that revision would be part of the "official revisison". or some system so > that we dont have to wait that long. > > hence the standard commity either need to be more present and accessible to > the Ada community, or form a team of members or non members that could do > this regular interval thing. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 17:17 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-07 17:42 ` Larry Hazel 2003-10-07 19:36 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 1:07 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 18:19 ` Martin Dowie 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Larry Hazel @ 2003-10-07 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Well, yes, that's pretty much compatible with the idea I've been putting > forward. If you have some group or organization overseeing some > updatable library, people could contribute what they thought would be > useful. The organization could arrive at some decision about its > suitability and include it if it seemed to warrant it. (They would be > playing the job of "Editor/Publisher" - work with a developer to get > something suitable and add it to the next scheduled release as deemed > necessary. That's how you'd resolve style issues and other things you > might care about, like documentation.) You'd have a release cycle with > sufficient frequency to give the language a means of rapidly reacting to > a changing world without locking something into the ARM that might prove > to be a "Bad Idea" or unstable or unproven. You get a more market-driven > language capability without absolute standardization (the ARM) or > absolute chaos (grabbing random libraries from the Internet.) > > If the vendors are on board with it, they pick up new releases and > distribute them with their compilers. They'd have the final say about > what they wanted to accept. They'd be responsible if there were any > portability issues to resolve. (Hopefully, few.) Ultimately pieces that > are added might or might not make it into the ARM, but so what? You've > got source code and if you like it, you use it with some guarantee that > it is common across implementations. I don't see how this is > undesirable. You get more functionality in a portable and standard way. > Long term, it may be an ARM feature if it is popular and stable enough. > > MDC > > > Stephane Richard wrote: > >> >> Well yes 10 years is a long time....We'd need something like the Linux >> system. By that I mean. Some one develops a new thing, suggests it to >> makers of Ada (like in linux they give it to the makers of linux) for >> acceptance into the next release (which typically doesn't take 10 >> years in >> most cases). by the end of 10 years if enough makers of Ada have it >> as part >> of their compiler then the revision can't overlook it. if it's that >> popular >> aside some terminology changes (say you didn't use the underscore in your >> names and Ada guidelines recommend you should, etc etc). then it gets >> added >> into the next revision..... >> >> I do agree that 10 years is a very long time and that might be part of >> the >> reason which slows down Ada's progress on the popularity charts. it's >> strength (truely standard language) is also it's qeakness (way too long >> revision period). I would say either the revisions need to be closer >> together (a year max instead of 10 years) or allow a principle of >> ammendment >> to the standard that could be revised periodically and whatever makes >> it to >> that revision would be part of the "official revisison". or some >> system so >> that we dont have to wait that long. >> >> hence the standard commity either need to be more present and >> accessible to >> the Ada community, or form a team of members or non members that could do >> this regular interval thing. >> > > Even if it were not distributed with compilers, having everything in one place as "The Ada Library" rather than bits and pieces here and there, it would be a great improvement over what we have now. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 17:42 ` Larry Hazel @ 2003-10-07 19:36 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-07 20:31 ` Stephen Leake ` (2 more replies) 2003-10-08 1:07 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1114 bytes --] > Even if it were not distributed with compilers, having everything in one > place as "The Ada Library" rather than bits and pieces here and there, > it would be a great improvement over what we have now. > I like the sound of that. We'd need a central place where all reusable libraries, maybe that could be a good addition to Ada World (The Ada Oracle) perhaps for a name :-) or simply the Ada Library and I could host them all, without a problem. :-). I'd like some input on this from people. See for instance, 1. what could be part of it? do we limit ourselves to platform independant reusable libraries? 2. Do we include such things as AdaCL and such data structure based libraries? 3. Do we go OS specific in different fields. For example. A binding to PDCurses, one for conio to allow for specific functionalities available on each OS/Platform? And others too, what would you guys put in The Ada Library ? And why...see if we can filter out a list that could please everyone. Awaiting comments, ideas and suggestions :-) -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 19:36 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 20:31 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-07 21:56 ` Stephane Richard ` (4 more replies) 2003-10-28 11:25 ` Marius Amado Alves [not found] ` <1067340353.3441.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> 2 siblings, 5 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-07 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw) "Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net> writes: > > Even if it were not distributed with compilers, having everything in one > > place as "The Ada Library" rather than bits and pieces here and there, > > it would be a great improvement over what we have now. > > > > I like the sound of that. We'd need a central place where all reusable > libraries, maybe that could be a good addition to Ada World (The Ada Oracle) > perhaps for a name :-) or simply the Ada Library and I could host them all, > without a problem. :-). www.adapower.com tried that, with very limited success. Before that, www.adahome.com had a similar idea. How is your site going to be better? Part of the problem is that just because an Ada package is on a web site doesn't mean it's a _good_ Ada package. So people don't want to use it. The Ada APIWG has the same issue; they need to do lots of reviewing of packages in order to give some value added, so people have a reason to trust the code. However, they have no way to pay people for the time spent reviewing, so it won't happen. I try to address this with my code by including unit tests. That doesn't seem to be enough. > I'd like some input on this from people. See for instance, > > 1. what could be part of it? Anything anyone ever found useful; someone else will need that same thing again. Of course, that leads to lots of code, and you need a really smart search engine to find anything. Which is another problem plaguing adapower.com; the search engine isn't very smart. > do we limit ourselves to platform independant > reusable libraries? Not "limit", but certainly state a "preference", and include that info in the searchable keywords. > 2. Do we include such things as AdaCL and such data structure based > libraries? Of course. They are useful. But allow all of them; Booch, Charles, SAL, Grace, etc. > 3. Do we go OS specific in different fields. For example. A binding to > PDCurses, one for conio to allow for specific functionalities available on > each OS/Platform? If someone finds it useful, then yes. > And others too, what would you guys put in The Ada Library ? And > why...see if we can filter out a list that could please everyone. Why should we "please everyone"?! The only person that needs to be "pleased" is the person that finds something useful in the library, and manages to use it, saving development time. If that person turns out to be "everyone", so much the better. The fact that some people like Charles, and would never use SAL, and other people make the opposite choice, is an argument for including _both_ Charles and SAL, not for excluding both! If you are suggesting some sort of review process, where people commit time to reviewing and approving stuff that goes into the library, then you do need to get agreement on what deserves reviewing. That's what the ARG is doing for proposed additions to the Ada standard. Those guys are getting paid (at least in part) to do that. If you want a reviewed library, you need to pay the reviewers, in some way; it's a lot of work. One way to pay reviewers is to get the companies they work for to allow them to spend company time reviewing code. I could do that for some packages that are related to my work; anyone else out there in the same situation? -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 20:31 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-07 21:56 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 1:11 ` Marin David Condic ` (2 more replies) 2003-10-07 22:12 ` tmoran ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4598 bytes --] "Stephen Leake" <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message news:uad8cbxhy.fsf@nasa.gov... > > www.adapower.com tried that, with very limited success. Before that, > www.adahome.com had a similar idea. How is your site going to be > better? > <snip> A very justifiable question, because of the history of adapower and adahome.(I didn't know adahome had such an idea, but then again I haven't been in the Ada field long enough I suppose. My idea of a centralized repository of libraries. is really as it's name implies. I'd like to build, in essense, a hierarchy if libraries...where users can go look (by any way they want) for what they need and looking for. I plan on searching from more than one point of view as in present the library many different ways based on if and how much they know about what they want. A curious eye might not search the same way as someone looking for a specific library or binding. If I could I would give it a taxonomy chart of some sort too for the sake of classification. :-). whatever needs to be done. (again open to suggestions on how to search within the the Library) I got ideas on my own and a good deal of em, but it dont mean I got every "good" way there could be :-). I want a database, of course for library records, but these records would merely point to files in the server (possibly organized the same way as the taxonomy chart. sousers could quickly do research in the library either based on a series of keywords, or based on categories or based on name/pattern matching, based on dates (if they just want to know what's new in the last week or so, etc etc... I think the picture I got in my head is much clearer than what's in these past paragraphs but I think I explained it clear enough. :-). -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com > Part of the problem is that just because an Ada package is on a web > site doesn't mean it's a _good_ Ada package. So people don't want to > use it. > > The Ada APIWG has the same issue; they need to do lots of reviewing of > packages in order to give some value added, so people have a reason to > trust the code. However, they have no way to pay people for the time > spent reviewing, so it won't happen. > > I try to address this with my code by including unit tests. That > doesn't seem to be enough. > > > I'd like some input on this from people. See for instance, > > > > 1. what could be part of it? > > Anything anyone ever found useful; someone else will need that same > thing again. > > Of course, that leads to lots of code, and you need a really smart > search engine to find anything. Which is another problem plaguing > adapower.com; the search engine isn't very smart. > > > do we limit ourselves to platform independant > > reusable libraries? > > Not "limit", but certainly state a "preference", and include that info > in the searchable keywords. > > > 2. Do we include such things as AdaCL and such data structure based > > libraries? > > Of course. They are useful. But allow all of them; Booch, Charles, > SAL, Grace, etc. > > > 3. Do we go OS specific in different fields. For example. A binding to > > PDCurses, one for conio to allow for specific functionalities available on > > each OS/Platform? > > If someone finds it useful, then yes. > > > And others too, what would you guys put in The Ada Library ? And > > why...see if we can filter out a list that could please everyone. > > Why should we "please everyone"?! The only person that needs to be > "pleased" is the person that finds something useful in the library, > and manages to use it, saving development time. If that person turns > out to be "everyone", so much the better. > > The fact that some people like Charles, and would never use SAL, and > other people make the opposite choice, is an argument for including > _both_ Charles and SAL, not for excluding both! > > > If you are suggesting some sort of review process, where people commit > time to reviewing and approving stuff that goes into the library, then > you do need to get agreement on what deserves reviewing. That's what > the ARG is doing for proposed additions to the Ada standard. Those > guys are getting paid (at least in part) to do that. If you want a > reviewed library, you need to pay the reviewers, in some way; it's a > lot of work. > > One way to pay reviewers is to get the companies they work for to > allow them to spend company time reviewing code. I could do that for > some packages that are related to my work; anyone else out there in > the same situation? > > -- > -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 21:56 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-08 1:11 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 16:07 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-09 10:50 ` Ching Bon Lam 2003-10-08 15:55 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-08 19:54 ` Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 1:11 UTC (permalink / raw) But we've been there and done that numerous times. That's why it needs some kind of "Official Standing" and probably some high level of integration, consistency, orthogonality, documentation, etc., etc. *Anybody* can pull together a bunch of existing stuff from the internet. Getting it accepted as "The Thing" requires something more. MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > > A very justifiable question, because of the history of adapower and > adahome.(I didn't know adahome had such an idea, but then again I haven't > been in the Ada field long enough I suppose. > > My idea of a centralized repository of libraries. is really as it's name > implies. I'd like to build, in essense, a hierarchy if libraries...where > users can go look (by any way they want) for what they need and looking for. > I plan on searching from more than one point of view as in present the > library many different ways based on if and how much they know about what > they want. > > A curious eye might not search the same way as someone looking for a > specific library or binding. If I could I would give it a taxonomy chart of > some sort too for the sake of classification. :-). whatever needs to be > done. (again open to suggestions on how to search within the the Library) I > got ideas on my own and a good deal of em, but it dont mean I got every > "good" way there could be :-). > > I want a database, of course for library records, but these records would > merely point to files in the server (possibly organized the same way as the > taxonomy chart. sousers could quickly do research in the library either > based on a series of keywords, or based on categories or based on > name/pattern matching, based on dates (if they just want to know what's new > in the last week or so, etc etc... > > I think the picture I got in my head is much clearer than what's in these > past paragraphs but I think I explained it clear enough. :-). > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 1:11 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 16:07 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-10 4:38 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 10:50 ` Ching Bon Lam 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-08 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > But we've been there and done that numerous times. That's why it needs > some kind of "Official Standing" and probably some high level of > integration, consistency, orthogonality, documentation, etc., etc. > *Anybody* can pull together a bunch of existing stuff from the internet. > Getting it accepted as "The Thing" requires something more. Yes, a critical mass. The Library need to be big enough and have enough developer support so that everybody wants it. With Regards Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net http://www.ada.krischik.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 16:07 ` Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-10 4:38 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 14:37 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-10 16:46 ` Martin Krischik 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw) A "critical mass" of users? Ada is still looking for one itself. :-) Or a "critical mass" of code? There's lots of code out there - probably more than enough to be of interest to and useful for the average developer. But its all a jumble of stuff of mixed quality, etc. Pulling it together in one place doesn't change that. A few million lines of random code doesn't make a library anyone wants to use. If it expects to gain some widespread use, it has to be a *good* library that is well integrated and well documented. I don't think it could be cobbled together from a bunch of packages found on the Internet. MDC Martin Krischik wrote: > Marin David Condic wrote: > > >>But we've been there and done that numerous times. That's why it needs >>some kind of "Official Standing" and probably some high level of >>integration, consistency, orthogonality, documentation, etc., etc. >>*Anybody* can pull together a bunch of existing stuff from the internet. >>Getting it accepted as "The Thing" requires something more. > > > Yes, a critical mass. The Library need to be big enough and have enough > developer support so that everybody wants it. > > With Regards > > Martin > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 4:38 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 14:37 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-10 16:24 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-11 14:07 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 16:46 ` Martin Krischik 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-10 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes: > A "critical mass" of users? Ada is still looking for one itself. :-) That's not true, by any sense of the word. "critical mass" means "enough to sustain itself". ACT and other vendors are making a profit, and expect to do so for the forseeable future; that meets the definition of "critical mass". I see the smiley, but this is too close to what many people say about Ada; I didn't want to let it go uncorrected. > Or a "critical mass" of code? There's lots of code out there - > probably more than enough to be of interest to and useful for the > average developer. But its all a jumble of stuff of mixed quality, > etc. Pulling it together in one place doesn't change that. A few > million lines of random code doesn't make a library anyone wants to > use. Right. A "critical mass" of users of the library is essential; that means people find it useful, and will do word-of-mouth advertising. > If it expects to gain some widespread use, it has to be a *good* > library that is well integrated and well documented. I don't think > it could be cobbled together from a bunch of packages found on the > Internet. Note that ACT is doing this "library" thing already; that's what all the Gnat.* packages are. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 14:37 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-10 16:24 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-11 14:16 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-11 14:07 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-10 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) "Stephen Leake" <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message news:ur81lgnvp.fsf@nasa.gov... > Right. A "critical mass" of users of the library is essential; that > means people find it useful, and will do word-of-mouth advertising. I think the key phrase here is "people find it" :-) You'd ba amazed who many Ada users aren't even aware of things like ASIS! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 16:24 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-11 14:16 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 1:30 ` Martin Dowie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-11 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw) And that's a really critical issue for any library. You can't just count on its existence - or even its distribution with a compiler - to make it well known and used. It has to satisfy some needs for the programmer (I think ASIS appeals to a particular market segment, but is not of much use to the general world - hence lack of visibility to most Ada users), it has to be well documented so the programmer can figure out what to do with it and it has to be actively *promoted* in some manner. Even Coke buys ads all the time, despite its market dominance. Why? They want to keep their name in front of the public so they will *stay* at the top. If you want to get a library adopted, its going to take some kind of promotion to make it known to the world. Not all of that costs money, but one way or another, it ought to be part of the plan. MDC Martin Dowie wrote: > > You'd ba amazed who many Ada users aren't even aware of things > like ASIS! > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 14:16 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 1:30 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-12 2:46 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-12 1:30 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F8810C0.3080506@noplace.com... > And that's a really critical issue for any library. You can't just count [snip] > money, but one way or another, it ought to be part of the plan. here here! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 1:30 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-12 2:46 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 2:46 UTC (permalink / raw) With your "snip" I can't tell if you agree with me or are poking fun of me. :-) ("You can't just count money...") Assuming you agree, here's the reason I show concern for the monetary aspects. No matter *how* a library gets built, *someone* is going to pay. Even if it was totally a volunteer effort - the volunteers end up funding it with their sweat equity. Even if the vendors get the library "free" (as in "free beer"), it still costs them money because they have to pay someone to incorporate it into their releases, make sure it compiles & runs, answer questions about it when customers call, etc. So even when no obvious $$$ change hands, $$$ are expended. Given that no matter what you do, you will be dealing with an outflow of $$$, it would be wise to figure out how that's going to work up front. Volunteer efforts only go so far before everyone's wife starts insisting that you stop wasting time in front of the computer (mine is doing that as we speak! :-) and your kids want to go visit the Magic Kingdom. Volunteers tend to build whatever it is *they* want to whatever standards and quality *they* find acceptable. If you want to get a library that meets various expectations for style, quality, schedule, etc., its going to help a hell of a lot if there is some money in there greasing the skids. If you want to insure that the library is going to see continuous support and enhancement, some money thrown at it is going to do a lot more to insure that than all the idealistic volunteering we're likely to see. Long term success means it probably needs to be able to generate enough cash to pay a few salaries or it will likely flounder. There are any nunmber of ways a library might be funded and not all of them involve someone writing a huge check up front. I discussed one option in the article I wrote for Ada Letters. It certainly isn't the only way to go - just one possible way. But whatever happens, I think those concerned with getting a library ought to put some thought into ways to fund its development and long term support. MDC Martin Dowie wrote: > "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message > news:3F8810C0.3080506@noplace.com... > >>And that's a really critical issue for any library. You can't just count > > [snip] > >>money, but one way or another, it ought to be part of the plan. > > > here here! > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 14:37 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-10 16:24 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-11 14:07 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-14 14:20 ` Stephen Leake 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-11 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake wrote: > > That's not true, by any sense of the word. "critical mass" means > "enough to sustain itself". ACT and other vendors are making a > profit, and expect to do so for the forseeable future; that meets the > definition of "critical mass". > Critical mass to keep the language alive, or Critical Mass to make the language a dominant force in the programming arena? Yeah, there's probably enough mass out there to keep some compiler vendors alive for a long stretch of years. But that was true of Jovial as well. If you want to discuss some "serious market share" - like, oh, say 30% of "general programming"? - That would be a "Critical Mass" big enough to make sure that Ada had a long-term expanding future in the general world of programming rather than a nice comfortable "retirement fund" of existing programs in the DoD and some other areas where it still hangs on. > > Right. A "critical mass" of users of the library is essential; that > means people find it useful, and will do word-of-mouth advertising. > Yeah, but I'd say we're a little far away from worrying about that just yet. Figure out how to build a *good* library that has general acceptance by the vendors and can react quickly to market demands. Do some market research to find out what end-users really want and need in a library. Get that far, and "Critical Mass" might just take care of itself. Build a better mousetrap.... As for word-of-mouth advertising? That works sometimes, but it sure wouldn't hurt at all to have an active campaign to get it noticed and tried. How to do that is TBD - especially with a limited budget. > > > Note that ACT is doing this "library" thing already; that's what all > the Gnat.* packages are. > I made note of that in my article in Ada Letters. You can read it and find out what sort of issues there are with that. I don't object to the Gnat.Packages, but that's only good for Gnat.Users. What about Aonix, RR, DDC-I, Rational, et alia? Other vendors won't likely adopt something from Gnat - at least not unless something is done to make it more of a "Group Project" where everyone has some ownership. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 14:07 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-14 14:20 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-14 19:14 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-14 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes: > Stephen Leake wrote: > > > > That's not true, by any sense of the word. "critical mass" means > > "enough to sustain itself". ACT and other vendors are making a > > profit, and expect to do so for the forseeable future; that meets the > > definition of "critical mass". > > > Critical mass to keep the language alive, This. > or Critical Mass to make the language a dominant force in the > programming arena? Why should I care about this? As long as _I_ get to use Ada, other people can make their own choices. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-14 14:20 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-14 19:14 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-14 19:27 ` Stephen Leake 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-14 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Why? Simple! The more people using Ada, the healthier and more long-lived it will be. The healthier Ada is, the more tools and utilities there will be to support it. A single compiler vendor with a single wealthy client could keep Ada "Alive" - but that doesn't mean that *you* have a compiler or any of the other spiffy things that might go with it. That's why I'd like to see Ada find some segment of the general computing population as its market - a big enough market means more cool stuff for everyone at prices that one might afford. And let's not even bring up "jobs" as another reason - but give that some thought. MDC Stephen Leake wrote: > > Why should I care about this? As long as _I_ get to use Ada, other > people can make their own choices. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-14 19:14 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-14 19:27 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-15 12:27 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-14 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes: > Why? Simple! The more people using Ada, the healthier and more > long-lived it will be. Healthy _enough_ is good enough for me. I (well, the US Government) pay $18,000 or so a year to ACT to maintain their health. Enough people currently do that to ensure the long-term viability of Ada, so I don't have to do any more. > The healthier Ada is, the more tools and utilities there will be to > support it. A single compiler vendor with a single wealthy client > could keep Ada "Alive" - but that doesn't mean that *you* have a > compiler or any of the other spiffy things that might go with it. True, but we are currently a long way from that. > That's why I'd like to see Ada find some segment of the general > computing population as its market - a big enough market means more > cool stuff for everyone at prices that one might afford. Mmm. If "cool stuff" is things like I see advertised in Dr Dobbs, I'll stick with the "nitch market stuff" I currently have, thank you. I guess I'm saying I _like_ Ada having a small, but healthy, market share. > And let's not even bring up "jobs" as another reason - but give that > some thought. That's a good point. It is a fact that managers make decisions based on market share, not technical merit. So if the Ada market gets too small, I might be forced to work in another language, no matter how much proof I give of improved productivity with Ada. I'm willing to participate in and contribute to a realistic, viable Common Ada Library. But until someone says "I've got a large chunk of change to invest in this business plan", I'm not going to give it serious attention. For now, I'll stick with my Ada library on my website. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-14 19:27 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-15 12:27 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-15 12:42 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-15 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw) At this point, nobody is proposing a business plan. I respect what you're saying because it soumds an awful lot like what I've been saying about volunteer efforts. Most people (myself included) have some amount of time they might kick in to build something if they thought there was soem reasonably charitable goal - like helping Ada to grow. But something like a CAL that was anything more than a container library (and thus a small, bounded project) is going to require a level of effort that is not likely to come from pure volunteerism. It certainly won't produce a high level of quality & consistency on anything resembling a schedule. So I think it takes some kind of funding to get there. A "Business Venture" is one way of doing the funding, but that may be problematic. Someone would have to see a way of making money from the venture itself and that could get in the way of the library gaining widespread adoption. OTOH, a joint-venture of some form on the part of the compiler vendors, where the vendors treat it more as an R&D thing and don't expect it to generate huge amounts of cash on its own - that might be a workable answer. Or see if there's any government money left to back up Ada research. Or perhaps find some university support. One way or another, I think it would take a small handful of salaries to oversee the endeavor long enough to get something working in place. How to do that? I don't know, but it would take some level of act-of-will on the part of the vendors. MDC Stephen Leake wrote: > > > I'm willing to participate in and contribute to a realistic, viable > Common Ada Library. But until someone says "I've got a large chunk of > change to invest in this business plan", I'm not going to give it > serious attention. For now, I'll stick with my Ada library on my > website. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-15 12:27 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-15 12:42 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-15 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) BTW: This is a fine example of why Ada would be better off if it had a more mainstream following and a large market share. If Ada were 30% of all software development, the vendors would look at a "paltry" $10 to $20 million in R&D money and not bat an eyelash. You'd have a full-up library of professional quality within 6 months and it would get continuing support and growth for years. With only a tiny niche (And one who's loyalty may at times be questionable - e.g. the DoD) your average vendor would likely want to look really carefully at even a fraction of that sum before expending it on any given R&D project. MDC Marin David Condic wrote: > Ada research. Or perhaps find some university support. One way or > another, I think it would take a small handful of salaries to oversee > the endeavor long enough to get something working in place. How to do > that? I don't know, but it would take some level of act-of-will on the > part of the vendors. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 4:38 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 14:37 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-10 16:46 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-10 18:00 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 14:22 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-10 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > If it expects to gain some widespread use, it has to be a *good* library > that is well integrated and well documented. I don't think it could be > cobbled together from a bunch of packages found on the Internet. True. But It could be a starting point. You have to start somewhere or give up and return to using C++. With Regards Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net http://www.ada.krischik.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 16:46 ` Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-10 18:00 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-12 11:19 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-11 14:22 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-10 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3218 bytes --] "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:1432352.H7KnUpQB8m@linux1.krischik.com... > True. But It could be a starting point. You have to start somewhere or give > up and return to using C++. > I'm affraid I have to agree with Marin David Condic on this one. if we don't start it the right way we can't expect it to finish the right way either. Code wise well I'm sure that even if we dont all use the "Ada quality And Style" standards and suggestions, we all write decent code as in good variable naming, clear function names, etc etc....so maybe we can used that code itself, or play with it to make it comply to a given standard. But documentation wise, it's a different story. As Warren said on one of his messages, a lot of code I've seen to can't even answer the question "Why do I need this thing?" Others aren't clear as to how to use it, what are the pre requesits, and other "what I deem essential" information on the package and it's contents. I agree to not reinvent the wheel. But for the sake of the quality of the whole library, maybe we can take a chizel and pick at that wheel a little? :-). (again another cheap attempt at a metaphore ;-). The question is where do we draw the line? As in sure there's code outthere to sort an array many different ways, how do we determine that code is bad? Code should be acceptable provided it has clear names throughout the library for variables, procedures, functions, package names, task names etc etc....a minimal source code commenting scheme, and a minimal documentation (that is detailed enough so that anyone can read it and use the given library as it was meant to be used. What we could do perhaps is in teh revision process take anycode out there and first see how bad or good it is, see what needs to be added (comment wise) see what the doc says and conclude of it's viability as a library component. I dont know how everyone codes, but those that I do know how they code, so far, I'd throw their code right in the library with both my eyes closed :-). Documentation wise? Well that can vary from library to library. Sure that means more work for bigger packages, but for the sake of the quality of the whole library, this process should be close to mandatory. For documentation it doesn't really need to be a document file, could be a sample program that is documented comment wise enough to explain the where and how to's then either the author of the code or anyone that feels like it really could take that sample program, and form a decent documentation from it.....what the document should state? well that we can work on :-)....but as a basis it should say, What it is, How it's organized (a text hierarchy of packages might be quickly done and clear enough). Relationships between the parts Quick listing of procedures and function (as per the spec file). perhaps AdaBrowse can do a fine job of that without changes. How to's (how to use it) Discrepencies (if any) Pre-requisites to using the library...as such - Which OS it is supposed to work for - Which version of the OS and the Compiler basically. :-) -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 18:00 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-12 11:19 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-12 14:48 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-12 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephane Richard wrote: > "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message > news:1432352.H7KnUpQB8m@linux1.krischik.com... > >> True. But It could be a starting point. You have to start somewhere or > give >> up and return to using C++. > I agree to not reinvent the wheel. But for the sake of the quality of the > whole library, maybe we can take a chizel and pick at that wheel a little? Shure. If we use a CVS archive we could first add the lib to the CVS and then chizel and pick at that wheel a little and then release it. With Regards Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net http://www.ada.krischik.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 11:19 ` Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-12 14:48 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-12 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:11465909.GRNmmDTdgE@linux1.krischik.com... > Stephane Richard wrote: > > > "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message > > news:1432352.H7KnUpQB8m@linux1.krischik.com... > > > >> True. But It could be a starting point. You have to start somewhere or > > give > >> up and return to using C++. > > > I agree to not reinvent the wheel. But for the sake of the quality of the > > whole library, maybe we can take a chizel and pick at that wheel a little? > > Shure. If we use a CVS archive we could first add the lib to the CVS and > then chizel and pick at that wheel a little and then release it. > > With Regards > > Martin > > -- > mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net > http://www.ada.krischik.com > Well that sounds like a good M.O. (Method Of Operation) to me :-). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 16:46 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-10 18:00 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-11 14:22 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-11 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw) First off, if you start with a sow's ear, you'll never get a silk purse. Cobbling something together from random bits of code collected from the internet is never going to get you a well-integrated, cvonsistent library. It is, and always will be, a bunch of disjointed parts that don't have anything to do with each other - except possibly that you got them all off the same disk. Second off, this random collection of code has been on the Internet for years. Nobody has adopted it as a "Standard Library" despite its availability. Why is that? Could it be that there might be good reasons not to? I think there are good reasons not to. Anyway, *IF* there was a general will to have a Conventional Ada Library and the vendors got on board with that, I don't think that implementation from the ground-up would be that much of a problem. Once you've laid the founation, you could start looking at things that came from assorted existing libraries and see if they could be adapted. That might be possible - but you need the foundation first. MDC Martin Krischik wrote: > > True. But It could be a starting point. You have to start somewhere or give > up and return to using C++. > > With Regards > > Martin > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 1:11 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 16:07 ` Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-09 10:50 ` Ching Bon Lam 2003-10-09 12:11 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Ching Bon Lam @ 2003-10-09 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in news:3F836447.1000800@noplace.com: > But we've been there and done that numerous times. That's why it needs > some kind of "Official Standing" and probably some high level of > integration, consistency, orthogonality, documentation, etc., etc. > *Anybody* can pull together a bunch of existing stuff from the > internet. Getting it accepted as "The Thing" requires something more. I haven't been there :) Could you name a couple examples? And what did go wrong that it didn't get accepted? CBL ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 10:50 ` Ching Bon Lam @ 2003-10-09 12:11 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-09 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw) Years ago in Ada83 there was an effort by (I think?) Richard Conn? It was affiliated with some university - it may even still be out there. He was assembling all sorts of Ada code and trying to classify it for easy reuse. A noble effort. I think it suffered from a couple of factors: 1) The "Not Invented Here" syndrome - which makes it tough for any library (but can be overcome). 2) The general inconsistency from one package of stuff to the next - no integration. 3) Often poor quality of what was there - things might or might not even compile, much less run. 4) Varying styles & interfaces - nothing you saw in one package was going to be mirrored in another package. ) Lack of documentation - or at least spotty and inconsistent. You might have the code but you might not be able to figure out what to do with it. These are just some guesses on my part as to why this didn't gain any sort of huge acceptance on the part of the Ada community. I'm sure people used it & it had some value, but it never caught on like it should have. You can also look at the various Ada websites that are out there and all the assorted libraries of stuff that is offered up. Yes, people use it, but there is a lot of overlap, inconsistency, lack of integration, lack of documentation, varying quality, varying styles, etc. There is no overall consensus that any one particular library for any one particular capability is "The Thing". Adding yet another library out there with no "Official" standing or endorsement is doing just that - adding another library to the mess. It may or may not have a large group of followers. It may or may not have a high level of integration and consistency. It may or may not be well documented. There's no reason to believe that it would become so "Dominant" that the vendors would be clamoring to put it on their distribution disks. But as I've said elsewhere, anyone who wants to is free to go ahead and try. I even hope they might succeed. I just won't waste my time on something that doesn't at least start with some level of acceptance by the ARG and the vendors. MDC Ching Bon Lam wrote: > > > I haven't been there :) Could you name a couple examples? And what did go > wrong that it didn't get accepted? > > CBL -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 12:11 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-09 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-09 18:30 ` tmoran 2003-10-10 1:29 ` Frank 2003-10-10 2:53 ` Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-09 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Years ago in Ada83 there was an effort by (I think?) Richard Conn? It > was affiliated with some university - it may even still be out there. He > was assembling all sorts of Ada code and trying to classify it for easy > reuse. A noble effort. I think it suffered from a couple of factors: 1) > The "Not Invented Here" syndrome - which makes it tough for any library > (but can be overcome). 2) The general inconsistency from one package of > stuff to the next - no integration. 3) Often poor quality of what was > there - things might or might not even compile, much less run. 4) > Varying styles & interfaces - nothing you saw in one package was going > to be mirrored in another package. ) Lack of documentation - or at least > spotty and inconsistent. You might have the code but you might not be > able to figure out what to do with it. Everyone wants something "ready to go". This isn't a bad thing, since I like that too ;-) But getting there is difficult, it seems. If I was to take on a package integrator role, focusing only on the GNAT world (for example), here are some of the challenges that I would face: - Ada is not a preprocessed language, yet there must be some code tweaks for each environment: - Different pragma Linker_Options depending upon platform (for linker convenience) - C macro value insertion (by various means) - Some language constructs don't compile, due to version specific GNAT bugs. This is addressable with gnatprep, but it adds a layer of complexity to the task at hand (and maintenance). This adds some layer of complication when it comes to users reporting bugs (you must relate the installed source line back to the original "template" source). - Some distributions must be distributed in original, unmodified form. This requires you to work out "patches" that can be applied at install time (not a show stopper, but it adds "work"). Actually, this is perhaps the best thing that can be done, but it does require extra effort. - GNAT installation challenges: Different versions of GNAT have different *.ali file format differences. This one drives me crazy. I am now in the midst of producing a APQ binary release for GNAT-3.15p, because I have discovered that my GNAT-3.14p binary release won't work for 3.15p users (win32). That means that I have to produce different binary installs for the same win32 environment, just to accomodate different flavours of GNAT. How many flavours of GNAT should you support? - Then add the never ending thrashing of changes from M$, on the win32 side. - Platform related installation challenges: No registry in Linux/UNIX/*BSD. So different install scripts/processes must be tested and documented. Often shells differ in their support. Even the same shell, but different versions have various bugs that can get in the way (bash). - The biggest annoyance that I have on a *NIX platform, is where is the correct place to put Ada packages? Where do all those *.ali files belong? It would be nice to have a "STANDARD" or "accepted practice" answer to this question. Should it be under /opt somewhere? The LSB never mentions Ada, that I am aware of. I use the GNAT environment variables ADA_INCLUDE_PATH/ADA_OBJECTS_PATH, but what if the user does not have these defined? Then what? Should I use gnatls -v output to guide the install? - Documentation: Libraries tend not to get used if they lack proper classification and documentation. For me, the first thing I look for is the answer to "why do I need this package/function?" So much documentation out there, fails to answer this basic question. - TESTING. This one is big, IMHO. - The user needs confidence that it is "ready to go". The only way this assurance can be there, is that there are some tests that can be used to measure this in a limited way. This is a major undertaking for some packages. Just some points to ponder (I am not suggesting the idea is hopeless). ;-) AS A SIDE NOTE, I wish that GNAT would allow you to package all of those pesky *.ali files into a libever.ali.a archive file, using ar. But GNAT would need to be enhanced to do this. Is Robert lurking out there? ;-) Warren. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-09 18:30 ` tmoran 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2003-10-09 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Some comments from the experience of making the Claw library on four different Ada compilers: > - Ada is not a preprocessed language, yet there must be some code > tweaks for each environment: > - Different pragma Linker_Options depending upon platform (for > linker convenience) > - Some language constructs don't compile, due to version specific > GNAT bugs. Sometimes the changes are needed in the package specs, not just the bodies. For instance, one version of Gnat required a whole bunch of stuff to get moved from private to public, with appropriate order of declaration changes. On a large library like Claw, it took a lot of work to find and fix all occurrences. IIRC we had to use a tool that parsed the specs and figured out the inheritance pattern and flagged the problematic cases. And no, we couldn't use ASIS because Gnat wouldn't compile, and thus wouldn't produce ASIS databases, for the relevant packages. > Different versions of GNAT have different *.ali file format differences. This doesn't directly apply to Claw, since it's distributed as source code, but there are other changes needed every year when there's a new Gnat release. Most recently, they changed the default behavior of elaboration so we could either tell all users to add -gnatE to their compile lines, an option unlikely to be greeted with applause, or go through the entire Claw library inserting specific pragma Elaborate's. And of course the library and tests must all be recompiled and run with each vendor's new compiler release. When there are new bugs, they may be non-trivial to find and work around, and may require significant knowledge of the inner workings of the library. This work is of course proportional to the number of versions and vendors of Ada compilers. (Of course if the vendors supported the Standard Library, they would have done this before releasing a new compiler version. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 12:11 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-10 1:29 ` Frank 2003-10-10 8:19 ` chris 2003-10-10 2:53 ` Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Frank @ 2003-10-10 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi! If we cant achieve an optimal solution, why not try (one of the) second best solutions: My idea of a second best solution would be that -urge the community members not to reinvent weels (like building then-th container library) in your projects, resuse exisiting libraries (a fairly well know "best practice" for programmers) -throw your semi-completed projects (those that you gave up because of lack of time or interest) on the net (perhaps adaworld could provide a "junkyard" or "dead code" - folder for such things) - giving others who come across the same inspiration the possibility to continue (if possible :-)). Sourceforge and similar is not on my mind, I imagine something very much less "official".(How to handle copyrights I dont know :-) Frank ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 1:29 ` Frank @ 2003-10-10 8:19 ` chris 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: chris @ 2003-10-10 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Frank wrote: > Hi! > > My idea of a second best solution would be that > -urge the community members not to reinvent weels (like building then-th > container library) in your projects, resuse exisiting libraries (a fairly > well know "best practice" for programmers) Good idea. > -throw your semi-completed projects (those that you gave up because of lack > of time or interest) on the net (perhaps adaworld could provide a "junkyard" > or "dead code" - folder for such things) - giving others who come across the > same inspiration the possibility to continue (if possible :-)). Sourceforge > and similar is not on my mind, I'd rather use Savannah than SF for anything. SF keep changing their T&C's and I've lost track of what's what on there. > I imagine something very much less "official".(How to > handle copyrights I dont know :-) I would be willing to submit some of my work provided I got the ability to work on it and extend it. I would even be willing to hand over my copyright, again providing I got the ability to play with it (also some credit) and it was some kind of group. I will be working in C and Java at Uni (oh, and Hydra), so Ada related work will fall quite considerably. It'd be good if someone else could contribute as the code is likely to be in the "junkyard" for a while. Right now I'm working on a simple raster based graphics lib (no convolutions/filtering, just the ability to manipulate single/groups of pixels), and am almost ready to load and save bitmaps. After that I'm going to finish libpng and add support for that. Chris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 12:11 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-10 1:29 ` Frank @ 2003-10-10 2:53 ` Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 2:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Years ago in Ada83 there was an effort by (I think?) Richard Conn? It > was affiliated with some university - it may even still be out there. He > was assembling all sorts of Ada code and trying to classify it for easy > reuse. A noble effort. I think it suffered from a couple of factors: 1) > The "Not Invented Here" syndrome - which makes it tough for any library > (but can be overcome). 2) The general inconsistency from one package of > stuff to the next - no integration. 3) Often poor quality of what was > there - things might or might not even compile, much less run. 4) > Varying styles & interfaces - nothing you saw in one package was going > to be mirrored in another package. ) Lack of documentation - or at least > spotty and inconsistent. You might have the code but you might not be > able to figure out what to do with it. The Ada Repository on SIMTEL20. Later moved several times http://www.decus.org/libcatalog/document_html/vs0091_25.html I think that most of the Ada Repository software is in Ada Basis: http://www.iste.uni-stuttgart.de/ps/ada-software/ada-software.html which is somewhat more up to date. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 21:56 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 1:11 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 15:55 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-08 16:49 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 17:18 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 19:54 ` Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-08 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw) "Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net> writes: > "Stephen Leake" <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message > news:uad8cbxhy.fsf@nasa.gov... > > > > www.adapower.com tried that, with very limited success. Before that, > > www.adahome.com had a similar idea. How is your site going to be > > better? > > > <snip> > > A curious eye might not search the same way as someone looking for a > specific library or binding. If I could I would give it a taxonomy chart of > some sort too for the sake of classification. :-). whatever needs to be > done. (again open to suggestions on how to search within the the Library) I > got ideas on my own and a good deal of em, but it dont mean I got every > "good" way there could be :-). > > I want a database, of course for library records, but these records would > merely point to files in the server (possibly organized the same way as the > taxonomy chart. sousers could quickly do research in the library either > based on a series of keywords, or based on categories or based on > name/pattern matching, based on dates (if they just want to know what's new > in the last week or so, etc etc... You are describing a huge amount of work. Cataloging random code is hard. Do you really have the resources to keep doing that for the next 20 years? How are you currently getting paid? Marin has an article in the current Ada Letters that goes into some of this; good reading. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 15:55 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-08 16:49 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 17:18 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-08 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1447 bytes --] > You are describing a huge amount of work. Cataloging random code is > hard. Do you really have the resources to keep doing that for the next > 20 years? How are you currently getting paid? > > Marin has an article in the current Ada Letters that goes into some of > this; good reading. > > -- > -- Stephe Indeed I am aren't I? if it's what it takes it's what I'll do, and as for getting paid, call it all (website and the Ada Library should it happen) my contribution to the free community :-). I'm doing this for free. And the resources I currently use for it (web space and development) are my own. it's my endeavour to Ada and it's community. All the software I use is OpenSource and requires but my time :-) not my money. Before I go ahead and do that, I'm getting in touch with a few key peole right now to see if there's another way or perhaps something already started or done (and still active) that we may or may not know about. that we could harnest or consult in a reasonable fashion. Whether I make it or I use (if something's viable somewhere) I dont mind either way, but I do like the idea of having one. As for querying the database and producing expected results, I already have a lot of it done based on other projects I did, so I'd be lying to say I'll be creating 100% of it all :-)....but I will be creating a good part of it however. :-). -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 15:55 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-08 16:49 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-08 17:18 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 2:59 ` Hyman Rosen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw) Did that come out already? I had not seen it yet. Well, O.K. I *did* see it. ;-) I just didn't see it in Ada Letters. Maybe the mail is late. MDC Stephen Leake wrote: > > Marin has an article in the current Ada Letters that goes into some of > this; good reading. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 17:18 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 2:59 ` Hyman Rosen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Hyman Rosen @ 2003-10-10 2:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Did that come out already? I had not seen it yet. Yes. Your article is badly formatted, I'm afraid. There are many words with wide internal spaces. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 21:56 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 1:11 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 15:55 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-08 19:54 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-08 21:40 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-09 12:28 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-08 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephane Richard wrote: > My idea of a centralized repository of libraries. is really as it's name > implies. I'd like to build, in essense, a hierarchy if libraries...where > users can go look (by any way they want) for what they need and looking for. > I plan on searching from more than one point of view as in present the > library many different ways based on if and how much they know about what > they want. Let me propose a baby step forward. If we do this right we are going to need a central registrar of top level library names. The ARG has implicitly grabbed Ada, Interfaces, and System, plus all the names of things declared directly in Standard. I want to work with others on what belongs in Statistics, and as far as I am concerned, any name in Eachus is mine, all mine. ;-) But it would be nice to have a central repository of all these names, with links to where the sources can be found (or purchased), and a protocol for allocating names and adjudicating conflicts. And yes, I'm working on getting my useful libraries organized, documented and available on the web. If no one else volunteers, I'll start work on it. But please! wait until we can get a group of people to handle this, and a central web site, perhaps at www.ada-auth.org. If people do like this idea, then eventually it should become a part of WG9. There are lots of such registries under ANSI and ISO, so that, for example, every Ethernet device has a unique ID. > A curious eye might not search the same way as someone looking for a > specific library or binding. If I could I would give it a taxonomy chart of > some sort too for the sake of classification. :-). whatever needs to be > done. (again open to suggestions on how to search within the the Library) I > got ideas on my own and a good deal of em, but it dont mean I got every > "good" way there could be :-). > I want a database, of course for library records, but these records would > merely point to files in the server (possibly organized the same way as the > taxonomy chart. sousers could quickly do research in the library either > based on a series of keywords, or based on categories or based on > name/pattern matching, based on dates (if they just want to know what's new > in the last week or so, etc etc... > I think the picture I got in my head is much clearer than what's in these > past paragraphs but I think I explained it clear enough. :-). A few years ago, in a project that for all I know is still groaning along somewhere, I said that with books, we had libraries and librarians for over a thousand years before moveable type, with hypertext, we were trying to do it the other way around. Text search engines for the World Wide Web have made it possible to find things for now. And I think the right approach going forward is to design the registration records as web pages with (hopefully!) the right (XML?) tags to help people find what they are looking for. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 19:54 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-08 21:40 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-09 12:28 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-08 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> writes: > Let me propose a baby step forward. If we do this right we are going > to need a central registrar of top level library names. Good point. > The ARG has implicitly grabbed Ada, Interfaces, and System, plus all > the names of things declared directly in Standard. I want to work > with others on what belongs in Statistics, and as far as I am > concerned, any name in Eachus is mine, all mine. ;-) Hmm. I've grabbed SAL, but that was a deliberate pun; it means "Stephe's Ada Library" _or_ "Standard Ada Library" :). > But it would be nice to have a central repository of all these names, > with links to where the sources can be found (or purchased), and a > protocol for allocating names and adjudicating conflicts. And yes, > I'm working on getting my useful libraries organized, documented and > available on the web. If no one else volunteers, I'll start work on > it. But please! wait until we can get a group of people to handle > this, and a central web site, perhaps at www.ada-auth.org. I think that's the right place to do it. Randy? -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 19:54 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-08 21:40 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-09 12:28 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 15:18 ` Stefan Lucks 2003-10-10 3:02 ` Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-09 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw) I could agree that "Baby Steps" are important and that there would be some value in setting up some kind of central repository & name registry, but two questions: 1) Would the ARG & Vendors be receptive to the end result? They don't have to agree to endorse/distribute it up front, but if such a library were to exist & meet some expectations, would they get on board? Would they be willing to participate to the level of saying what it is they want to see in an end product? Would they be willing to sit in on periodic reviews to discuss direction, etc.? I'd want to see the effort produce something that the ARG and Vendors would *want* to put some stamp of approval on and distribute - but I'm not a mind reader. 2) Who is going to play "Editor/Publisher" to make sure that what comes in meets some sort of standards of acceptability? It can't be a free-for-all with anybody building anything they like with whatever style they like and to whatever quality they like, etc. I'd think that an editor (or small group of editors) could work with prospective authors to make sure they are working on the "right" things and to the "right" guidelines. Otherwise, its just another inconsistent mess - but all under one roof. I could see other questions like licensing, etc. coming into the mix rather quickly, but for now, I'd just like to see #1 and #2 answered. BTW: I'd propose "CAL" as the root package name and from there, you can have "CAL.Statistics". But be sure to build the statistics stuff utilizing whatever comes under "CAL.Containers". ;-) MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > Let me propose a baby step forward. If we do this right we are going to > need a central registrar of top level library names. The ARG has > implicitly grabbed Ada, Interfaces, and System, plus all the names of > things declared directly in Standard. I want to work with others on > what belongs in Statistics, and as far as I am concerned, any name in > Eachus is mine, all mine. ;-) > > But it would be nice to have a central repository of all these names, > with links to where the sources can be found (or purchased), and a > protocol for allocating names and adjudicating conflicts. And yes, I'm > working on getting my useful libraries organized, documented and > available on the web. If no one else volunteers, I'll start work on it. > But please! wait until we can get a group of people to handle this, and > a central web site, perhaps at www.ada-auth.org. If people do like this > idea, then eventually it should become a part of WG9. There are lots of > such registries under ANSI and ISO, so that, for example, every > Ethernet device has a unique ID. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 12:28 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-09 15:18 ` Stefan Lucks 2003-10-09 16:10 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-10 3:02 ` Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stefan Lucks @ 2003-10-09 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw) I like the baby-step proposal. However, such a standard library would rather be a collection of different sublibraries (typically packages), and the interfaces would not always be consistent. That is unavoidable, and most programmers could live with that. (Even e.g. the JAVA library is not always consistent, though its designers did seriously try ...) One problem with any library is that you may be using different versions on different platforms. Another problem is that if you fetch the library from some web site (which is assumed for the baby-step propoal), you may first want to check if it runs in your environment at all. [...] > to the "right" guidelines. Otherwise, its just another inconsistent mess [...] One thing that might significantly improve the acceptance for such a collection of (sub-)libraries would be to support a *standartised* *interface* at least for 1. a unit test for the package and 2. checking the current version number of package This would help people to actually integrate these library packages into their stuff, doing automatic unit and integration tests ... Also, this does not seem to hinder the integration of already existing libraries into the standard library: -- Dealing with the version number is trivial, anyway. -- Assuming the authors of the already existing library did implement unit tests for their library at all, writing one additional procedure for doing the full unit test can't be too difficult. Consider you *with'ed* the package "some.weird.package_name" from the standard library. Without having to look into either source code or other documentation, I'd like to compile and then run a unit test by calling: some.weird.package_name.Full_Self_Test(0); The "0" indicates "accept no errors", see below. Checking the version number should be done similarly. You can't always prevent version skew, but can automatically detect potential problems. > BTW: I'd propose "CAL" as the root package name and from there, you can > have "CAL.Statistics". But be sure to build the statistics stuff > utilizing whatever comes under "CAL.Containers". ;-) Here an example (using "CAL" as the root package): CAL.Containers.Bags.Full_Self_Test(expected_number_of_errors => n); -- raises an exception if not exactly n tests fail -- (usually: n=0, but sometimes you may want to "with" a package -- even though you know that the unit test reveals some bugs) CAL.Containers.Bags.Require_Version_Number(3, 14, or_newer => true); -- raises an exception if version of CAL.Containers.Bags is 3.13 or -- older; does not raise for newer versions, such as 3.15 or 4.2 -- if or_newer is false (default), then Require_Version_Number raises if -- the version number is not exactly 3.14. -- now start doing your real stuff, e.g.: CAL.Containers.Bags.Insert(the_bag => my_bag, the_item => my_item); The above is just an example. Perhaps some of you have better ideas for the actual interface to do a unit test and to check the version number. Note that both unit test and version number deal with CAL.Containers.Bags in the above example, (i.e., with the "innermost" package) not with CAL.Containers or even CAL itself. I am not sure, whether a package should be hold responsible for its child packages. A package such as CAL.Containers may not even know all of its child packages, right? In other words, for CAL and CAL.Containers we should avoid to call (or even implement) Full_Self_Test and Require_Version_Number ... -- Stefan Lucks Th. Informatik, Univ. Mannheim, 68131 Mannheim, Germany e-mail: lucks@th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de home: http://th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/people/lucks/ ------ I love the smell of Cryptanalysis in the morning! ------ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 15:18 ` Stefan Lucks @ 2003-10-09 16:10 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-09 16:57 ` Stephane Richard ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-09 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Stefan Lucks <lucks@th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de> writes: > I like the baby-step proposal. > > However, such a standard library would rather be a collection of different > sublibraries (typically packages), and the interfaces would not always be > consistent. That is unavoidable, Perhaps "really expensive", or "hard to achieve". It is _not_ "unavoidable". I hate all absolutes :). > and most programmers could live with that. (Even e.g. the JAVA > library is not always consistent, though its designers did seriously > try ...) Which is one reason I don't like the Java libraries. But a lot of programmers do live with them. It would be a great selling point if the Ada library did _not_ have that problem! > One problem with any library is that you may be using different > versions on different platforms. Why would that happen? The Gnu tools manage many platforms with no version problems. Well, some poorly-supported platforms may take a while to catch up to the latest version, but "gcc 2.8.1" means the same thing on all platforms. > Another problem is that if you fetch the library from some web site > (which is assumed for the baby-step propoal), you may first want to > check if it runs in your environment at all. Yes, which is why all library packages must come with complete tests. Again, the Gnu tools typically come with tests (well, the compiler doesn't, but the others do). Yes, this is more work, but it is what makes the library usable. > One thing that might significantly improve the acceptance for such a > collection of (sub-)libraries would be to support a *standartised* > *interface* at least for > > 1. a unit test for the package and I find Aunit to be a good unit test framework (see http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/grace/ for a working example). > 2. checking the current version number of package We could require each top-level package to provide a Version function, that returns a string. Also follow the Gnu convention of including that string in the tar.gz file name for distributions. > This would help people to actually integrate these library packages into > their stuff, doing automatic unit and integration tests ... yes. Note that SAL (http://www.toadmail.com/~ada_wizard/) does this. So let's all just use SAL :). > Also, this does not seem to hinder the integration of already existing > libraries into the standard library: > > -- Dealing with the version number is trivial, anyway. > > -- Assuming the authors of the already existing library did implement > unit tests for their library at all, writing one additional > procedure for doing the full unit test can't be too difficult. Well, switching from one unit test framework to another is painful. For example, most of the SAL unit tests do _not_ use the Aunit framework, because I discovered that late in the process. The non-Aunit tests write output files, which are diffed (by the Makefile) against known-good output files. It is a _major_ amount of work to change those tests to Aunit style. But as long as the Makefile can return a Pass/Fail status, it doesn't matter too much. More important are things like standard names for common operations; do we "Add" an element to a container, or "Insert" it? That's a major problem for integrating existing code. SAL attempts to do this, but doesn't fully succeed. > Consider you *with'ed* the package "some.weird.package_name" from > the standard library. Without having to look into either source code > or other documentation, I'd like to compile and then run a unit test > by calling: > > some.weird.package_name.Full_Self_Test(0); The unit test code does _not_ belong in the package itself. If it is, it would be included in every delivered executable; major waste of space. It should be in a child package. But it's really not reasonable to define unit tests at this level. Many unit tests require auxiliary packages, which should _not_ be children (see SAL for examples). Providing a Makefile that runs the tests and produces a pass/fail is much more reasonable. > Checking the version number should be done similarly. You can't always > prevent version skew, but can automatically detect potential > problems. Hmm. I guess you mean one package depends on specific versions of other packages, and you want to check that at run-time (or better, compile time). That problem is solved by tools like Redhat Package Manager (rpm); it's a big problem, and we should not try to invent new solutions. Just an example of the kinds of discussions an integrated library committee will be having ... -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 16:10 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-09 16:57 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 4:58 ` Marin David Condic ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-09 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3918 bytes --] > > Perhaps "really expensive", or "hard to achieve". It is _not_ > "unavoidable". I hate all absolutes :). *** I hate absolutes too, except for my depts (Abs(-whatever) is Whatever) so my dept would be cleared hhehehe... > > Why would that happen? The Gnu tools manage many platforms with no > version problems. Well, some poorly-supported platforms may take a > while to catch up to the latest version, but "gcc 2.8.1" means the > same thing on all platforms. > *** I agree here. perhaps we could keep a history somehwere of versions that have been released before so that they could access them....\archives folder in each package's folder, or something? if one really wants to use a previous version. > > I find Aunit to be a good unit test framework (see > http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/grace/ for a working example). > *** I heard of that one, it does look pretty good as a testing unit...but I wouldn't limit it to one as they are more than one testing engines that do a good job...all we really need is to know that it has been tested and the results of that test and I would be contended. > We could require each top-level package to provide a Version function, > that returns a string. Also follow the Gnu convention of including > that string in the tar.gz file name for distributions. > *** that would and could work :-). or at least a file with a version history (with the top most line being the most recent version ... something clear somewhere to say that "this is the one you want"/ > > More important are things like standard names for common operations; > do we "Add" an element to a container, or "Insert" it? That's a major > problem for integrating existing code. SAL attempts to do this, but > doesn't fully succeed. *** I second that motion, probably because of my non ada background (shame on me :-). but if we consider "polymorphism" indeed a true library should use consistent names for similar functions and procedure. again do we Open a file or do we Load a file, do we Save or Store a file? anything in the library that saves a file (log file, report file, any file at all) should use the same name. *** likewise any package/library that has the ability to display itself on the screen should have standard names ... do we show the form, display the form, do we use a property like Visible set to True, pick one and stick to it. :-). *** Definitaly reduces the learning curve of the whole library this way. I have to agree with that :-). > > But it's really not reasonable to define unit tests at this level. > Many unit tests require auxiliary packages, which should _not_ be > children (see SAL for examples). Providing a Makefile that runs the > tests and produces a pass/fail is much more reasonable. *** How about an independant file for the testing? as in you have SAL and all its ramifications which represent the package/binding whichever it may be. and you have SAL_Test which would be a program that with's the SAL library and performes the tests? or somekind of standard. maybe based on folders too (sorta like boost library). \src <- has the source code of the package itself (adn sub packages. \test <- has source and/or binaries of the SAL_Test program. \demos <- for demonstration programs of what the unit can do etc etc. maybe a \docs for documents (which should be in one format only somthing platform independant like HTML perhaps). and the list goes on :-) for whichever and depending on the type of library and/or binding. > > Hmm. I guess you mean one package depends on specific versions of > other packages, and you want to check that at run-time (or better, > compile time). That problem is solved by tools like Redhat Package > Manager (rpm); it's a big problem, and we should not try to invent new > solutions. *** I second that motion. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 16:10 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-09 16:57 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-10 4:58 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 9:28 ` Stefan Lucks 2003-10-10 15:51 ` Robert I. Eachus 3 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 4:58 UTC (permalink / raw) It is also an example of why you need some sort of "Editor/Publisher" to establish rules for style and content. It is also an example of why an "All Volunteer" effort is difficult to make work. For example, I like the notion of version numbering. (I incorporated it into my own personal library of stuff - its difficult to get it right - especially if things like containers have persistence) I also like the notion of built in tests. If the library establishes that it wants those sorts of things but a given "Volunteer" decides he doesn't like the idea or doesn't want to invest the time, how are you going to squeeze him to get it done? You can refuse to accept the work until it meets some standards - but then maybe you don't get much work to accept. Volunteers are always free to pick up their marbles and go home - or start their *own* standard library. Its tricky to make something like this work and getting it right is time consuming - possibly expensive. That's why you want to be sure you're likely to meet with some acceptance of whatever you pull together before you go down that road. MDC Stephen Leake wrote: > > Just an example of the kinds of discussions an integrated library > committee will be having ... > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 16:10 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-09 16:57 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 4:58 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 9:28 ` Stefan Lucks 2003-10-10 14:59 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-10 16:29 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-10 15:51 ` Robert I. Eachus 3 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stefan Lucks @ 2003-10-10 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw) On 9 Oct 2003, Stephen Leake wrote: > Stefan Lucks <lucks@th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de> writes: > > 1. a unit test for the package and > > I find Aunit to be a good unit test framework (see > http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/grace/ for a working example). You missed my point! Think of a "customer" (i.e., any programmer who wants to "with" the library) and call her A. A somehow (perpaps by downloading it from the web site) gets her hands on the source code of some library packages. The very first thing she will (or at least should) do is to ask each package: "Are you okay?" ("Is this package compiling under my compiler and running on my target platform under my target platform's configuration?") The best way to answer this question is to run the entire battery of unit tests which have been used by the author of the library package. I would want to provide A with a simple button to fire the test battery. And this button should be at the same place and have the same shape and color for all packages of the standard library! It is a non-issue for A, which test framework has been used by the author of the library package. > > 2. checking the current version number of package > We could require each top-level package to provide a Version function, > that returns a string. I had been thinking of that. However, natural sting comparison is different from comparing version numbers: "14.3" < "3.14" (Ouch!) > Also follow the Gnu convention of including that string in the tar.gz > file name for distributions. I agree, this is a good convention. But my point is: Allow A to check version numbers automatically, either at compile time or (early) when testing. The Ada compiler is an extremely powerful tool, so use it. > > some.weird.package_name.Full_Self_Test(0); > > The unit test code does _not_ belong in the package itself. If it is, > it would be included in every delivered executable; major waste of > space. It should be in a child package. OK, so use some.weird.package_name.Self_Test.Full_Self_Test(0); instead. (However, I don't quite buy your wast-of-space reason. Any decent linker is able to throw away unused subprograms, right?) > But it's really not reasonable to define unit tests at this level. > Many unit tests require auxiliary packages, which should _not_ be > children (see SAL for examples). Providing a Makefile that runs the > tests and produces a pass/fail is much more reasonable. Didn't Lady Ada free us from using makefiles? :-) And who said that the auxiliary packages should be children? Just "with" them, when implementing your tests. If this does not compile because the "with"ed toolbox is not available, A has no chance to do these tests by herself anyway, even if she'd run make. (I can imagine some special cases and exceptional circumstances, where your test needs external files, system- or platform-specific information, ... This prevents providing the full test battery, i.e. Full_Self_Test can't be implemented. Sometimes, even a reduced test battery could be useful -- call it Main_Self_Test instead of Full_...) > Hmm. I guess you mean one package depends on specific versions of > other packages, I think, you missed my point again. Think as a "customer" A. Consider an application with-ing some library package X version y.z. It has compiled fine, passed all tests, and perhaps it has even passed some code-reviews. Now it is compiled again, either for a different platform, or under a different compiler, or it has been modified/extended, ... There is an implementation of X available, and its version number is v(X). If v(X) = y.z, then fine! If v(X) < y.z, this may indicate great trouble. (However, perhaps A can download and install a more recent version of X.) A's reaction on v(X) > y.z, may depend on her trust in the upward-compatibility of the development of X ... At least for saftety- or security-critical programs (and that is still the area where Ada is best for), it would be prudent to check for things that may be broken by using a version of X which is newer than y.z. The least thing I'd do would be to read the changes-log of X. My point is, I don't want A to *manually* compare y.z with v(X). (There may be many Xs, and thus many pairs (v(X),y.z).) It is much better to do these tests automatically, either at compile time or at least (early) at test time. The Ada compiler is a great tool, so use it to simplify your life! :-) > Just an example of the kinds of discussions an integrated library > committee will be having ... Ackn! -- Stefan Lucks Th. Informatik, Univ. Mannheim, 68131 Mannheim, Germany e-mail: lucks@th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de home: http://th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/people/lucks/ ------ I love the smell of Cryptanalysis in the morning! ------ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 9:28 ` Stefan Lucks @ 2003-10-10 14:59 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-10 16:48 ` Ed Falis 2003-10-10 16:29 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-10 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Stefan Lucks <lucks@th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de> writes: > On 9 Oct 2003, Stephen Leake wrote: > > > Stefan Lucks <lucks@th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de> writes: > > > > 1. a unit test for the package and > > > > I find Aunit to be a good unit test framework (see > > http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/grace/ for a working example). > > You missed my point! Well, I didn't. There are two points here; 1) how to write the unit tests 2) how to invoke the unit tests. Aunit is an answer to point 1. > Think of a "customer" (i.e., any programmer who wants to "with" the > library) and call her A. A somehow (perpaps by downloading it from > the web site) gets her hands on the source code of some library > packages. The very first thing she will (or at least should) do is > to ask each package: "Are you okay?" ("Is this package compiling > under my compiler and running on my target platform under my target > platform's configuration?") > > The best way to answer this question is to run the entire battery of unit > tests which have been used by the author of the library package. Yes. That's point 2). > I would want to provide A with a simple button to fire the test > battery. And this button should be at the same place and have the > same shape and color for all packages of the standard library! Yes. My answer is "from you normal command line, run 'make test'". Your answer appears to be "somehow run code that invokes Foo.Self_Test". > It is a non-issue for A, which test framework has been used by the > author of the library package. Well, it matters a little, if it affects the answer to point 2). But it mostly doesn't matter. > > > 2. checking the current version number of package > > > We could require each top-level package to provide a Version function, > > that returns a string. > > I had been thinking of that. However, natural sting comparison is > different from comparing version numbers: > "14.3" < "3.14" (Ouch!) Ah. I missed that you wanted them at runtime. Yes, that would require two or three integers. Or convert to float first :). > OK, so use > > some.weird.package_name.Self_Test.Full_Self_Test(0); > > instead. (However, I don't quite buy your wast-of-space reason. Any > decent linker is able to throw away unused subprograms, right?) In a perfect world, yes. But no current linker (that I use or am aware of) does this. There's also the information hiding and general code organization issue; unit test code is a different beast than implementation code, and doesn't belong in the same package. > Didn't Lady Ada free us from using makefiles? :-) From parts of them, yes; the makefile no longer has to specify the Ada source file dependencies. But as I have said before here, there is much more to a real project than the Ada source code. > And who said that the auxiliary packages should be children? Just > "with" them, when implementing your tests. If this does not compile > because the "with"ed toolbox is not available, A has no chance to do > these tests by herself anyway, even if she'd run make. Sometimes you need visibility into the private part to implement a good unit test; that means at least some of the unit test has be a child package. > (I can imagine some special cases and exceptional circumstances, where > your test needs external files, system- or platform-specific information, > ... This prevents providing the full test battery, i.e. Full_Self_Test > can't be implemented. Sometimes, even a reduced test battery could be > useful -- call it Main_Self_Test instead of Full_...) I don't accept that a full unit test "can't be provided". If you can't test it, it doesn't do anything real :). Maybe it's hard or expensive; that's different. That would have to be one of the library policies; how expensive can the unit tests be? > > Hmm. I guess you mean one package depends on specific versions of > > other packages, > > I think, you missed my point again. Think as a "customer" A. > > Consider an application with-ing some library package X version y.z. Ada can't say "version y.z" in a with clause (and no, I don't think we want a language extension for that :). But I think I know what you mean. Let's call the Application Y; the last time Y was tested, it used X version y.z. > There is an implementation of X available, and its version number is v(X). > > If v(X) = y.z, then fine! Right. Hopefully, this is tested at configure time (pre compile-time; I'm thinking Gnu configure, or rpm). > If v(X) < y.z, this may indicate great trouble. (However, perhaps A can > download and install a more recent version of X.) Right. > A's reaction on v(X) > y.z, may depend on her trust in the > upward-compatibility of the development of X ... At least for saftety- or > security-critical programs (and that is still the area where Ada is best > for), it would be prudent to check for things that may be broken by using > a version of X which is newer than y.z. The least thing I'd do would be to > read the changes-log of X. Right. > My point is, I don't want A to *manually* compare y.z with v(X). (There > may be many Xs, and thus many pairs (v(X),y.z).) It is much better to do > these tests automatically, either at compile time or at least (early) at > test time. Right. That's what rpm does. I haven't used it much, but it seems to do it well. And it does it before compile time, which is even better. > The Ada compiler is a great tool, so use it to simplify your life! > :-) Um, the Ada compiler can't do this. Unless we extend Ada with "pragma Version" or something. Is that what you are proposing? You can write code that uses the Foo.Version function, and compares it against an expected version. Maybe that's what you are proposing. But that's at run-time, which is way too late. I would only use Foo.Version in a Help | About box, and in error logs. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 14:59 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-10 16:48 ` Ed Falis 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 2003-10-10 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) On 10 Oct 2003 10:59:05 -0400, Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote: >> I would want to provide A with a simple button to fire the test >> battery. And this button should be at the same place and have the >> same shape and color for all packages of the standard library! > > Yes. My answer is "from you normal command line, run 'make test'". > Your answer appears to be "somehow run code that invokes > Foo.Self_Test". > >> It is a non-issue for A, which test framework has been used by the >> author of the library package. > > Well, it matters a little, if it affects the answer to point 2). But > it mostly doesn't matter. Note that part of the point of AUnit is to allow composition of test suites, so that it's relatively straightforward to execute groupings of them with a single command. (Noted that this is different than the build issue). >> And who said that the auxiliary packages should be children? Just >> "with" them, when implementing your tests. If this does not compile >> because the "with"ed toolbox is not available, A has no chance to do >> these tests by herself anyway, even if she'd run make. > > Sometimes you need visibility into the private part to implement a > good unit test; that means at least some of the unit test has be a > child package. Right. Generally, if I find mysef in this situation (usually in the form of needing additional queries for unit testing), I add a child of the unit under test to provide those queries. - Ed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 9:28 ` Stefan Lucks 2003-10-10 14:59 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-10 16:29 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-11 7:01 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-10 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Stefan Lucks wrote: > On 9 Oct 2003, Stephen Leake wrote: >>Stefan Lucks <lucks@th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de> writes: >>> 1. a unit test for the package and >> >>I find Aunit to be a good unit test framework (see >>http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/grace/ for a working example). > > You missed my point! > > Think of a "customer" (i.e., any programmer who wants to "with" the > library) and call her A. A somehow (perpaps by downloading it from the web > site) gets her hands on the source code of some library packages. The very > first thing she will (or at least should) do is to ask each package: "Are > you okay?" ("Is this package compiling under my compiler and running on my > target platform under my target platform's configuration?") > > The best way to answer this question is to run the entire battery of unit > tests which have been used by the author of the library package. I would > want to provide A with a simple button to fire the test battery. And this > button should be at the same place and have the same shape and color for > all packages of the standard library! > > It is a non-issue for A, which test framework has been used by the author > of the library package. The general idea is good (provision for testing), but I don't like the child package idea. It enjoys a different visibility as a child package, than the consumer of the package would enjoy. Thus, I don't think the tests would be accurate to the "user experience" as they need to be. I would suggest that the test packages and programs, fall under their own heirarchy, complete and separate from the library units. After all, if I test the libraries at install time, I may want to dispense with the test files after the fact. It is easy to dispense with the test packages, if they are separated from the end product. Warren. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 16:29 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-11 7:01 ` Simon Wright 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2003-10-11 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw) "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes: > The general idea is good (provision for testing), but I don't like > the child package idea. It enjoys a different visibility as a child > package, than the consumer of the package would enjoy. Thus, I don't > think the tests would be accurate to the "user experience" as they > need to be. The tests need to make sure the unit under test works right. Some tests will involve the interface, some need to get at the insides, some need to do both. > I would suggest that the test packages and programs, fall under > their own heirarchy, complete and separate from the library > units. After all, if I test the libraries at install time, I may > want to dispense with the test files after the fact. It is easy to > dispense with the test packages, if they are separated from the end > product. The directory hierarchy and the unit hierarchy don't need to match (with GNAT, anyway, & OA almost for sure). So you can put child units (for peering at internals) in the test code directory. One impact of this style is that you may have to put things in the private part of the spec that you would otherwise put in the body -- but if you can't test the code you need to inspect[0] it and that can be a much more expensive process. Of course your standards may require inspection anyway in which case there's no difference -- in theory, though personally I'm much more comfortable with a good test suite than inspection[1] (this is heresy, by the way, don't let on!). [0] Fagan inspection [1] especially for iterative development & code whose requirements change ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 16:10 ` Stephen Leake ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-10-10 9:28 ` Stefan Lucks @ 2003-10-10 15:51 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-10 17:04 ` Stephen Leake 3 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake wrote: > Yes, which is why all library packages must come with complete tests. > Again, the Gnu tools typically come with tests (well, the compiler > doesn't, but the others do). Yes, this is more work, but it is what > makes the library usable. Agreed. I don't think that "built-in" test is necessarily a good idea for all libraries, but I definitely like the idea of having a standalone test program that does the sanity checks and diagnostics. Note that this can't be boolean pass or fail in many cases. Which brings up another point. For many packages a tuning program is just as important as a test procedure. It doesn't need to be as elaborate as ATLAS for BLAS in many cases, but it is often needed. For example, I have a lot of random-number generators that depend on computing X**2 mod N fast for particular values of N. Of course, for most cases a type that is appropriate for storing X mod N, is not going to work for computing the square. (If System.Max_Nonbinary_Modulus is big enough, no problem. Otherwise workarounds are needed.) I've written three or four workarounds, some that are fine if they compile: type Big_Int is range -2**(2*My_Int'Size-1)..2**(2*My_Int'Size-1)-1; Others depend on properties of the floating point types. A program designed to test these workarounds that also does timings would be a great help to people porting the package. > We could require each top-level package to provide a Version function, > that returns a string. Also follow the Gnu convention of including > that string in the tar.gz file name for distributions. Hmmm. Let me flesh this out a bit. 1) There must be a Version function in the top level package. 2) There may be a Version function in lower level packages. 3) There may be Current_Version string in package specifications. 4) The Version function will normally return a string of the form x{.y{.z}} where x, y, and z are integers, optionally followed by a date. 5) The format of the date, if present, is not specified. But the values shall be such that the String comparison operations ">", etc. return the right results. That last sounds complicated, but all it means is that: "1.2.3 May 3, 2002" and "1.2.4 March 12, 2003" are perfectly fine, but an additional 1.2.4 version such as "1.2.4 April 1, 2003" might not be. The developer of course may have lots of candidate 1.2.4 versions before he releases one. But once he does, it is better if the next version has a new number. Note that even though the Version function is in the package spec, the implementation will be in the body. Which is fine, since the body version can change more frequently. A rule that said that changing the package specification should change the first component of the version might be nice, but I hardly think it is necessary. Now do we encourage the ARG to do the same with Ada, System and Interfaces, and if so what version strings should be returned. ;-) > Hmm. I guess you mean one package depends on specific versions of > other packages, and you want to check that at run-time (or better, > compile time). That problem is solved by tools like Redhat Package > Manager (rpm); it's a big problem, and we should not try to invent new > solutions. Um, it is solved for distribution of software in RPM form. But if I post a short program on comp.lang.ada and it depends on a particular revison or later of a library, it would be nice to include the one line check in the soure. If the Version function were more carefully specified that check could be optimized away. Hmmm. Maybe we need two version functions, one that returns a string, and another that returns just an integer reflecting the spec version... > Just an example of the kinds of discussions an integrated library > committee will be having ... Aren't we already having these discussions? -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 15:51 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 17:04 ` Stephen Leake 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-10 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> writes: > Stephen Leake wrote: > > > Just an example of the kinds of discussions an integrated library > > committee will be having ... > > Aren't we already having these discussions? yes, but we aren't the formal library committee, so I'm not being very rigorous, and sometimes I just ignore things. I was trying to point out that being on the formal library committee will be a pain, and take a lot of time. If I'm on it, I want to get paid, in some way. Maybe we could form a corporation, like Boost. Has anyone offered to pay for support for the Booch libraries, or any other existing library (the answer is no for SAL)? -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 12:28 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 15:18 ` Stefan Lucks @ 2003-10-10 3:02 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-10 5:17 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > 1) Would the ARG & Vendors be receptive to the end result? They don't > have to agree to endorse/distribute it up front, but if such a library > were to exist & meet some expectations, would they get on board? Would > they be willing to participate to the level of saying what it is they > want to see in an end product? Would they be willing to sit in on > periodic reviews to discuss direction, etc.? I'd want to see the effort > produce something that the ARG and Vendors would *want* to put some > stamp of approval on and distribute - but I'm not a mind reader. You really don't want to ask the ARG. We have a specific role under WG9, and if this was made a NWI (new work item), it might be assigned to some other RG, probably one set up for the purpose. > 2) Who is going to play "Editor/Publisher" to make sure that what comes > in meets some sort of standards of acceptability? It can't be a > free-for-all with anybody building anything they like with whatever > style they like and to whatever quality they like, etc. I'd think that > an editor (or small group of editors) could work with prospective > authors to make sure they are working on the "right" things and to the > "right" guidelines. Otherwise, its just another inconsistent mess - but > all under one roof. Good idea. WG9 would probably need to assign a sucker er, technical editor anyway, and there would be periodic dead tree versions published. Of course no one with any sense would use other than the on-line version. ;-) > I could see other questions like licensing, etc. coming into the mix > rather quickly, but for now, I'd just like to see #1 and #2 answered. That's why I suggested keeping the focus on the first level naming. The actual source could be public domain, copyrighted under various terms, or even licensed for big bucks. But having a central repository of names would insure that conflicts did not arise. > BTW: I'd propose "CAL" as the root package name and from there, you can > have "CAL.Statistics". But be sure to build the statistics stuff > utilizing whatever comes under "CAL.Containers". ;-) You meant Ada.Containers, right? Of course, if it is necessary, one could be a renaming of the other. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 3:02 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 5:17 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 16:38 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-10 18:44 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 5:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > You really don't want to ask the ARG. We have a specific role under > WG9, and if this was made a NWI (new work item), it might be > assigned to some other RG, probably one set up for the purpose. > It can live under any group you like so long as there is some sort of agreed-upon acceptance from the vendors and anyone else that matters that somehow or other this is going to be distributed with Ada compilers. > > That's why I suggested keeping the focus on the first level naming. > The actual source could be public domain, copyrighted under various > terms, or even licensed for big bucks. But having a central > repository of names would insure that conflicts did not arise. > Before charging off and starting a library tree of names even, I'd like to see what sort of requirements and/or organization the vendors would like to have. What would make such a project acceptable to them? What do they want in it? How would they want it played out? Names are relatively easy to hammer out. Once you know what sort of things the vendors want, you create a tree of names that lines up with that and get everybody to say O.K. Assuming its under control of some editor/publisher and you want to get a statistics library in there, you talk to the editor and if he agrees, he gives you a branch name to work under. > > You meant Ada.Containers, right? Of course, if it is necessary, one > could be a renaming of the other. > Nope. Nothing under Ada unless the ARM explicitly makes it legal to extend things under the root package Ada. There are times I'd have liked to extend things under the root package Ada - except its illegal to do that. If you've got an Ada.Containers, you'd like some end user to a) have source for Ada.Containers and b) be able to tweak or adjust it or extend it with whatever good ideas he may have. (Like maybe Ada.Containers.Realtime? Or Ada.Containers.Bounded?) If this is difficult to allow, then start another tree that is totally independent and under which it *is* possible to extend. Naturally, if you modify the source for some package that is distributed by your vendor, you assume the risk of managing any changes. But the whole idea of a library outside of the ARM is to be able to make it more flexible, so you want people playing with it and extending it. Thats where the new "Good Ideas" are going to come from. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 5:17 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 16:38 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-11 14:35 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 18:44 ` Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-10 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > > > You really don't want to ask the ARG. We have a specific role under > > WG9, and if this was made a NWI (new work item), it might be > > assigned to some other RG, probably one set up for the purpose. > > > It can live under any group you like so long as there is some sort of > agreed-upon acceptance from the vendors and anyone else that matters > that somehow or other this is going to be distributed with Ada compilers. I believe this will happen as a natural consequence of doing this important work. The vendor won't want to incurr extra work, unless there is some wild advantage to them doing so. I believe that this effort merely needs to organize the naming conventions such that it is not likely to stomp on some existing vendor naming convention. Surely industry experience can steer us away from most of these problem areas without waiting for vendors? > > That's why I suggested keeping the focus on the first level naming. > > The actual source could be public domain, copyrighted under various > > terms, or even licensed for big bucks. But having a central > > repository of names would insure that conflicts did not arise. > > > Before charging off and starting a library tree of names even, I'd like > to see what sort of requirements and/or organization the vendors would > like to have. What would make such a project acceptable to them? What do > they want in it? How would they want it played out? Names are relatively > easy to hammer out. Once you know what sort of things the vendors want, > you create a tree of names that lines up with that and get everybody to > say O.K. Assuming its under control of some editor/publisher and you > want to get a statistics library in there, you talk to the editor and if > he agrees, he gives you a branch name to work under. I think you are on a different fork then some of the others in this thread are on. You are looking at the (1) "what do we & and vendors want in functionality?" There are others that are saying (2) "I have this to offer, but where should I put it (name it)?" Both issues need to be dealt with. The easiest way to get started is to address the naming conventions, and this should naturally address #2 as a consequence, and work towards the issue #1 as it progresses. But I would suggest, that we do not wait for the vendors to do something. I think this was the whole point of the idea in this thread. Baby steps: let's at least get the egg made, and hope that a chicken shows up later. ;-) Warren. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 16:38 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-11 14:35 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-15 16:24 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-11 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) It won't work. It hasn't worked. If you can at *minimum* get the vendors to give you a nod that says "Yes, if such a thing were done under the control of this organization and with this sort of license and to some level of acceptable quality, we'd get on board and distribute it...", then you've got something. They don't have to commit to the library and wouldn't want to until they saw the net result. But if the answer is "No. We will not now, nor will we ever distribute a library built by this organization with that license, etc., - not unless it is totally rammed down our throats by the end users...", then the game is over. Don't waste time trying to get some organization together and get a project started unless you know from the start that the ultimate authority on acceptance is at least willing to consider it a possibility. So far, I have no indication that this is the case. MDC Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > I believe this will happen as a natural consequence of doing this > important work. The vendor won't want to incurr extra work, unless > there is some wild advantage to them doing so. > > I believe that this effort merely needs to organize the naming > conventions such that it is not likely to stomp on some existing > vendor naming convention. Surely industry experience can steer > us away from most of these problem areas without waiting for > vendors? > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 14:35 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-15 16:24 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-15 17:57 ` Ed Falis ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-15 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > It won't work. It hasn't worked. > > If you can at *minimum* get the vendors to give you a nod that says > "Yes, if such a thing were done under the control of this organization > and with this sort of license and to some level of acceptable quality, > we'd get on board and distribute it...", then you've got something. They > don't have to commit to the library and wouldn't want to until they saw > the net result. > > But if the answer is "No. We will not now, nor will we ever distribute a > library built by this organization with that license, etc., - not unless > it is totally rammed down our throats by the end users...", then the > game is over. IFF you get this kind of answer from some, most or all of the vendors, then I would agree that you have a "point". But IMHO, this is unlikely first of all (its not in their interest to go against what the user base wants), and certainly not a foregone conclusion. Note the "FF" in "IFF". 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. ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-15 16:24 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-15 17:57 ` Ed Falis 2003-10-15 20:45 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-15 20:44 ` Mark A. Biggar 2003-10-16 12:38 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 2003-10-15 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:24:37 -0400, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote: > .. But I don't think the > vendors are going to have any kind of a surprise for anyone on > this front. ;-) Well, I dunno, we Ada vendors brought the world many development systems for Ada, including GNAT, and most of the world didn't seem to know they wanted any of them ... ;-) - Ed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-15 17:57 ` Ed Falis @ 2003-10-15 20:45 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-15 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Falis wrote: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:24:37 -0400, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG > <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote: >> .. But I don't think the >> vendors are going to have any kind of a surprise for anyone on >> this front. ;-) > > Well, I dunno, we Ada vendors brought the world many development systems > for Ada, including GNAT, and most of the world didn't seem to know they > wanted any of them ... > > ;-) > > - Ed They were'nt surprised enough ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-15 16:24 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-15 17:57 ` Ed Falis @ 2003-10-15 20:44 ` Mark A. Biggar 2003-10-16 12:55 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-16 12:38 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Mark A. Biggar @ 2003-10-15 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > Marin David Condic wrote: > >> It won't work. It hasn't worked. >> >> If you can at *minimum* get the vendors to give you a nod that says >> "Yes, if such a thing were done under the control of this organization >> and with this sort of license and to some level of acceptable quality, >> we'd get on board and distribute it...", then you've got something. >> They don't have to commit to the library and wouldn't want to until >> they saw the net result. >> >> But if the answer is "No. We will not now, nor will we ever distribute >> a library built by this organization with that license, etc., - not >> unless it is totally rammed down our throats by the end users...", >> then the game is over. > > > IFF you get this kind of answer from some, most or all of the vendors, > then I would agree that you have a "point". But IMHO, this is unlikely > first of all (its not in their interest to go against what the user > base wants), and certainly not a foregone conclusion. Note the "FF" > in "IFF". > > 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. ;-) The other issue that the vendors will have is the support issue. If they distribute it, then they will have to provide some level of support for it, if only training their support people on how to say "distributed as is, we don't support it". And vendor don't like to do that, as it causes "Good Will" problems with their customers. So even if you have the best thing sense Turing machines, some vendors may not distribute it, because they don't see any benefit in the increase in support costs. Anything that isn't in the standard can have this problem. -- mark@biggar.org mark.a.biggar@comcast.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-15 20:44 ` Mark A. Biggar @ 2003-10-16 12:55 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-16 16:52 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-16 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Right. I can see that and anticipat that objection on the part of the vendors. But at the end of the day, you are not going to get something for nothing. We could jam a whole gigantic library into the standard and they'd have to support it or admit they don't have a "Full" Ada compiler. (I've already observed why we *don't* want it in the standard, but assume for a minute it was there in order to *force* the vendors into providing it.) They could each pay the cost of building that huge library and each pay the cost of supporting that library and each suffer individually. ***OR*** The vendors could work as a team on this and share the expense. Form up some sort of organization to take care of the library and support it. It comes from a single source and they could relatively easily point any customer support issues to that source. Its even conceivable that the organization they start could become self-sustaining - generating revenue out of their own support contracts or software sales or royalties or whatever else they might provide. Here's the thing: Nobody is going to ge a Conventional Ada Library free. *Someone* is going to bear the cost of producing it and maintaining it. Even if that "Someone" is a bunch of volunteers. If you want to have reasonable control over the library and get it done on a schedule and have it meet various expectations, that's going to cost something. However, that doesn't mean the cost has to be huge or back-breaking for each vendor. Some sort of cooperative effort and creative licensing might enable it to get constructed and supported without having to incur huge costs. MDC Mark A. Biggar wrote: > > > The other issue that the vendors will have is the support issue. If > they distribute it, then they will have to provide some level of support > for it, if only training their support people on how to say "distributed > as is, we don't support it". And vendor don't like to do that, as it > causes "Good Will" problems with their customers. > > So even if you have the best thing sense Turing machines, some vendors > may not distribute it, because they don't see any benefit in the > increase in support costs. > > Anything that isn't in the standard can have this problem. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 12:55 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-16 16:52 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-16 17:53 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-16 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Right. I can see that and anticipat that objection on the part of the > vendors. But at the end of the day, you are not going to get something > for nothing. We could jam a whole gigantic library into the standard and > they'd have to support it or admit they don't have a "Full" Ada > compiler. (I've already observed why we *don't* want it in the standard, > but assume for a minute it was there in order to *force* the vendors > into providing it.) They could each pay the cost of building that huge > library and each pay the cost of supporting that library and each suffer > individually. > > ***OR*** > > The vendors could work as a team on this and share the expense. Form up > some sort of organization to take care of the library and support it. It > comes from a single source and they could relatively easily point any > customer support issues to that source. Its even conceivable that the > organization they start could become self-sustaining - generating > revenue out of their own support contracts or software sales or > royalties or whatever else they might provide. > > Here's the thing: Nobody is going to ge a Conventional Ada Library free. > *Someone* is going to bear the cost of producing it and maintaining it. > Even if that "Someone" is a bunch of volunteers. If you want to have > reasonable control over the library and get it done on a schedule and > have it meet various expectations, that's going to cost something. > However, that doesn't mean the cost has to be huge or back-breaking for > each vendor. Some sort of cooperative effort and creative licensing > might enable it to get constructed and supported without having to incur > huge costs. > > MDC And at the end of the fiscal year, the cost will be passed back to you and me. After all, nobody's just going to eat the charges "just because". So I think that is a given. The point is how to get it all rolling. IMO, which is obviously a bit different than yours, you'll not get things rolling waiting for the vendor to initiate this effort. Especially if it involves in multiple vendors working together. Not impossible mind you, just unlikely. That is like trying to reach consensus in a meeting with 15 people in it, vs a small group of three. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 16:52 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-16 17:53 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-17 13:25 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-16 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > > And at the end of the fiscal year, the cost will be passed back > to you and me. After all, nobody's just going to eat the charges > "just because". So I think that is a given. > Yes. But so what? You volunteer time and hence you pay with labor. You purchase support (and get the direct benefits thereof) and you pay for further development. In the former case, there is little to no control over quality or style or deliverables or schedule. In the latter case, you get some ability to direct the effort and make sure that things are done "right" - at least from the perspective of the consumer of the end product (That being the vendors and their immediate customers.) > The point is how to get it all rolling. IMO, which is obviously > a bit different than yours, you'll not get things rolling waiting > for the vendor to initiate this effort. Especially if it involves > in multiple vendors working together. Not impossible mind you, just > unlikely. That is like trying to reach consensus in a meeting > with 15 people in it, vs a small group of three. I agree that the point is to get it all rolling. I'm agitating, aren't I? :-) Keep in mind that I've served in efforts to get something like this going before and fould little to no results from the volunteer efforts. Hence, I'm agitating to see if a different approach might actually work better. I think if customers were to start asking their vendors to supply a library and that it be semi-standard between compilers, etc., they'd hear that message. I doubt that they have no idea I'm out here agitating for a library or suggesting that they get on board. *INITIALLY* it might even get somewhere as a volunteer effort - provided the vendors simply gave it a nod and a wink and a little guidance as to what they might want. I think long-term - much as with the Ada standard itself - they'd have to be "Owners" of it in some way. They fund the development of the standard by participating in the ARG, etc., and devoting staff time to looking over the changes, suggesting improvements, and so on. This is really just an extension of that same process. They'd be participating in a similar effort to get a Conventional Ada Library built - and getting what they wanted rather than something they'd likely turn their noses up at. Ultimately, there are dozens or maybe even hundreds of ways to organize something that might produce and maintain a library. I think that if such a library were to thrive and gain acceptance in a wide way, it ought to get some kind of involvment of the vendors. It seems you want to go organize an effort that would build one without the vendor's involvement in the hope of getting that involvement later. It *could* work - we just have not seen that happen yet despite numerous other attempts to do it that way. I wouldn't try to stop you - I'd just wait to see where it got before I'd spend my time on it because I've seen similar efforts fall apart. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 17:53 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-17 13:25 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-18 13:50 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-17 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: ... > Ultimately, there are dozens or maybe even hundreds of ways to organize > something that might produce and maintain a library. I think that if > such a library were to thrive and gain acceptance in a wide way, it > ought to get some kind of involvment of the vendors. It seems you want > to go organize an effort that would build one without the vendor's > involvement in the hope of getting that involvement later. It *could* > work - we just have not seen that happen yet despite numerous other > attempts to do it that way. I wouldn't try to stop you - I'd just wait > to see where it got before I'd spend my time on it because I've seen > similar efforts fall apart. > > MDC I guess our faith is in the different parties. ;-) You are willing to trust that the vendors will get things going. I am too skeptical/cynical to have that kind of trust, beyond anything more than the GNAT.* packages. My faith is more in the development side. *WE* have the invested interest. *WE* can more easily *do* something. Vendors have to budget, plan and justify. Vendors are less likely to do "extreme programming"/skunkworks type of things to see if an idea will fly. *WE* don't have to answer to anyone (as open source/hobby). That allows us to do R&D, where the vendor (and/or our employer) would have trouble with. So, yes, you're right. I would favour "organize an effort", rather than pleading with vendors. ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-17 13:25 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-18 13:50 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-21 17:14 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-18 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > I guess our faith is in the different parties. ;-) > > You are willing to trust that the vendors will get things going. I am > too skeptical/cynical to have that kind of trust, beyond anything > more than the GNAT.* packages. > No, I *don't* trust them to "get things going". That's why I'm nagging, complaining, whining, pleading, etc. I expect that people with support contracts with various vendors might send them a note saying "I want a Conventional Ada Library that does X, Y and Z..." A lone voice crying out in the wilderness occasionally can have an impact. :-) However, I doubt I'm alone. As for the GNAT packages - that might actually make a really good start for a Conventional Ada Library. There is visible evidence that ACT is out there actively enhancing their Ada product line, so they would be one of the vendors most likely to do something with a CAL. Are any of the other vendors doing anything with their Ada product lines to enhance them? Or are they just selling what they've got and sitting on their hands, so to speak, with any new development? If ACT was the only one - or perhaps the dominant one - then making ACT happy would be key to success. Starting with what they've already got would be a good way to do it. > My faith is more in the development side. *WE* have the invested > interest. *WE* can more easily *do* something. Vendors have to > budget, plan and justify. Vendors are less likely to do "extreme > programming"/skunkworks type of things to see if an idea will fly. > I didn't say that *WE* wouldn't necessarily have something to do with it. What I said was that the vendors need to be involved early on in some manner or whatever *WE* do is going to be a waste of time. I just absolutely, 100% see a total of ZERO evidence of any of the existing library attempts getting to any sort of point of "general acceptance" that got the vendors interested in packaging it with their compilers or got the ARG to declare it "Standard Ada". Yet there have been dozens - or more - attempts to get various libraries of stuff started. What evidence do you have that starting Yet Another Library Project is going to meet with any better success unless you do something strategically different this time? Sorry if I sould "angry" - I'm not. Just excited. :-) I'm trying to get across the point that if we really want a library effort of some sort to succeed, we'd better look at all the ones that have "failed" in the past and try to make a different set of mistakes. You're not the firt one to get charged up and say "Well, lets go start writing a library..." I'm suggesting you look at why the other efforts failed and figure out a way around that. > *WE* don't have to answer to anyone (as open source/hobby). That > allows us to do R&D, where the vendor (and/or our employer) would > have trouble with. > Yes, but just recall all the other various and sundry "Open Source" / Volunteer oriented projects of any stripe that get started out there. (Should we start a list?) I'd bet that if you actually surveyed, you'd find that 90% of them colapse before they ever produce anything at all useful. The remainder might make something that works, but that it is mostly produced over a *very* long stretch of time and that it really doesn't take on the qualities of a "Finished Product" (more like some kid's sience fair project, usually) until there is some commercial effort out there making money on supporting it. The few that get "Commercialized" might start reacting fairly well and at reasonable speed to perceived needs, but it takes them a really long time to get to that point. What is in your plan to start building a library that is going to make that different? > So, yes, you're right. I would favour "organize an effort", rather > than pleading with vendors. ;-) > Please go right ahead. I'll watch the effort from the sidelines. I'd love to see you or anybody else get a library together that won some kind of acceptance from the general Ada community and got some kind of interest from the vendors and eventually had some sort of official standing. I'm just betting it won't work - and I'm not a pessimist by nature. I've just seen it fail too many times in the past to want to go off and make the same mistakes all over again. At least, let's be creative and make some *different* mistakes this time. :-) Or maybe you have a *different* plan? Something other than an all-volunteer, open source, free for the world, "Let's all get together and build something good & wonderful for Ada and give it away hoping it will be adopted by everyone..." effort? I'd like to see the plan, if that's the case. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-18 13:50 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-21 17:14 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-22 13:04 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-21 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > > > I guess our faith is in the different parties. ;-) > > > > You are willing to trust that the vendors will get things going. I am > > too skeptical/cynical to have that kind of trust, beyond anything > > more than the GNAT.* packages. > > > No, I *don't* trust them to "get things going". That's why I'm nagging, > complaining, whining, pleading, etc. I expect that people with support > contracts with various vendors might send them a note saying "I want a > Conventional Ada Library that does X, Y and Z..." A lone voice crying > out in the wilderness occasionally can have an impact. :-) However, I > doubt I'm alone. OK, I phrased it wrong. You trust in the nagging of users to the vendors to help push it along. I'm not criticizing; just trying to boil the point into its most basic elements. ;-) BTW, I finally received my printed copy of the Ada Letters last week. Good work on the article. > As for the GNAT packages - that might actually make a really good start > for a Conventional Ada Library. There is visible evidence that ACT is > out there actively enhancing their Ada product line, so they would be > one of the vendors most likely to do something with a CAL. Are any of > the other vendors doing anything with their Ada product lines to enhance > them? Or are they just selling what they've got and sitting on their > hands, so to speak, with any new development? If ACT was the only one - > or perhaps the dominant one - then making ACT happy would be key to > success. Starting with what they've already got would be a good way to > do it. There seems to be several good indications coming from ACT. One of which is the support of the Win32Ada binding that comes with the Windows port. The other is that I noticed somewhere that they have accepted the maintenance of FLORIST, for which I was able to successfully submit a bug report (that did not bounce ;-). Both of these two areas alone are big areas of maintenance. So kudos to ACT for taking these progressive steps. This level of support may push other vendors into doing something similar. > > My faith is more in the development side. *WE* have the invested > > interest. *WE* can more easily *do* something. Vendors have to > > budget, plan and justify. Vendors are less likely to do "extreme > > programming"/skunkworks type of things to see if an idea will fly. > > > I didn't say that *WE* wouldn't necessarily have something to do with > it. I know that. Don't be too sensitive ;-) > What I said was that the vendors need to be involved early on in > some manner or whatever *WE* do is going to be a waste of time. I just > absolutely, 100% see a total of ZERO evidence of any of the existing > library attempts getting to any sort of point of "general acceptance" > that got the vendors interested in packaging it with their compilers or > got the ARG to declare it "Standard Ada". Apart from standards and the ARG, what about Win32Ada and FLORIST. I do believe that _some_ evidence does exist. FLORIST was started outside of ACT, though I don't know about the Win32Ada binding. > Yet there have been dozens - > or more - attempts to get various libraries of stuff started. What > evidence do you have that starting Yet Another Library Project is going > to meet with any better success unless you do something strategically > different this time? How many competing designs where there for the Ada language, before one was "accepted"? For a container library, I think there is room for several attempts before getting it "right". After all, Ada programmers are much fussier about the quality and the design than in other languages. I think one needs to leave room for evolution and experimentation. Eventally, an emerging accepted defacto standard is bound to emerge. I think, you would agree that we would like it to happen a little sooner, that's all! > Sorry if I sould "angry" - I'm not. Just excited. :-) Thats OK. We could use some excitement here. ;-) > I'm trying to get > across the point that if we really want a library effort of some sort to > succeed, we'd better look at all the ones that have "failed" in the past > and try to make a different set of mistakes. You're not the firt one to > get charged up and say "Well, lets go start writing a library..." I'm > suggesting you look at why the other efforts failed and figure out a way > around that. I'm all in favour of examination of historical attempts. I mean, why invent yet another of the same thing that failed. But based upon the discussions that I have seen here, there seems to be a lack of concensus about what it should be. Another factor now is, what "could there be?" after Ada 200Y is adopted? Once some of the issues have been solved, and the enhancements added that deal with interfaces (and/or MI) are in place, this could substantially change the landscape for such development. For many projects, this shouldn't matter, but for a container library this could be "key". So, I would suggest, let's attack some of the problems along the way. Some of the larger problems may become easier to solve later. Bug the vendors for sure, but don't entirely depend upon this. I have always taken the approach of learning from doing. So I would not discourage people from trying something new. Many projects may end up as throw-aways in the end, but that does not mean the effort is a wasted one. You seem to be worried about wasted effort(s). But people learn from these projects, and they should be regarded as research projects rather than wasted efforts. In the corporate world, this becomes harder to justify, but R&D is still required there also. We just don't hear about all of the discarded projects in IT, but you can be sure that lessons were learned (or should have been). ;-) > > *WE* don't have to answer to anyone (as open source/hobby). That > > allows us to do R&D, where the vendor (and/or our employer) would > > have trouble with. > > > Yes, but just recall all the other various and sundry "Open Source" / > Volunteer oriented projects of any stripe that get started out there. > (Should we start a list?) As I've pointed out earlier, a failed project is never completely a failure. Someone/people have learned lessons from those undertakings, even if it is just to understand their own level of commitment ;-) > I'd bet that if you actually surveyed, you'd find that 90% of them > colapse before they ever produce anything at all useful. How many mutated species survive? Do these numbers matter? I think you are concerned that Ada resources are thinner, and so you don't want to see that resource wasted. A valid concern. But a certain amount of this so called "waste" is a necessary part of any R&D. > The remainder > might make something that works, but that it is mostly produced over a > *very* long stretch of time and that it really doesn't take on the > qualities of a "Finished Product" (more like some kid's sience fair > project, usually) until there is some commercial effort out there making > money on supporting it. This is true. In the book the "Mythical Man Month", the author points out that it takes 9 times the "in the garage" effort, to take a project from one small program, to integrate it into a system of programs and to make it a finished product. Most projects take a long time to reach that point, if ever. Agreed. But note the word "most". > The few that get "Commercialized" might start > reacting fairly well and at reasonable speed to perceived needs, but it > takes them a really long time to get to that point. Even commercial products can take eons to reach that polished state.. some never get there ;-) > What is in your plan to start building a library that is going to make > that different? Well, I think that multiple teams could be assembled (resources and interest permitting), that could address a critical need. Like the Ada language competition, I think that something could emerge. > > So, yes, you're right. I would favour "organize an effort", rather > > than pleading with vendors. ;-) > > > Please go right ahead. I'll watch the effort from the sidelines. I'd > love to see you or anybody else get a library together that won some > kind of acceptance from the general Ada community and got some kind of > interest from the vendors and eventually had some sort of official > standing. I'm just betting it won't work - and I'm not a pessimist by > nature. I've just seen it fail too many times in the past to want to go > off and make the same mistakes all over again. At least, let's be > creative and make some *different* mistakes this time. :-) I am in favour of doing "different mistakes". There is nothing gained by repeating what we already have, unless you are trying to avoid a copyright issue. I'd be willing to participate as a member of a team in some capacity, but I am already overbooked with 3 other major open sourced projects at this time to do any more. Will my work be accepted? Heck if I know, but I am doing this to scratch my own itch, and hope in the process it will scratch a few other itches out there, in the process. Perhaps I need to take a different approach, and organize group efforts. For the container library, IMHO, we'll probably want to be patient with that one. Given that it's too late to affect the 200Y standard, it can also wait until 200Y is settled. From what I saw in the Ada Letters were some interesting issues, that could give any new container library effort some nice new options to work with. > Or maybe you have a *different* plan? Something other than an > all-volunteer, open source, free for the world, "Let's all get together > and build something good & wonderful for Ada and give it away hoping it > will be adopted by everyone..." effort? I'd like to see the plan, if > that's the case. > > MDC Well, I don't really have a plan (shrink), other than what I've posted in earlier posts in this thread. You raised some interesting ideas in your Ada Letters article, which might work. It would be nice in fact, if that would work. Maybe I am showing my own skepticism here, but I think for that to succeed, you'll need some Richard Stallman type that is willing to lead that charge. It will take a strong minded, vision incensed person to make sure that it is realized. Are you leading that charge? Perhaps you are holding out on us? ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-21 17:14 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-22 13:04 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-22 16:46 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-22 13:04 UTC (permalink / raw) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > BTW, I finally received my printed copy of the Ada Letters last > week. Good work on the article. > Thanks. Maybe I ought to author something else related to that? > > > I know that. Don't be too sensitive ;-) > Sorry. Not "sensitive" - just excitable. > > Apart from standards and the ARG, what about Win32Ada and FLORIST. I > do believe that _some_ evidence does exist. FLORIST was started outside > of ACT, though I don't know about the Win32Ada binding. > Except that neither one of those was some sort of "All Volunteer" effort divorced from the vendors. Thus demonstrating exactly what I am hoping ought to happen. Win32Ada was something that was built (I believe) By Tucker Taft who was doing it for Averstar? Softech? Somebodyorotherwhowasalsoacompilervendor? It had some buy-in from the vendors who were putting out Windows compilers - hence it is a semi-standard thing. Florist has some ACT buy-in now and maybe had some connection there I'm not aware of. But it (afaik) is not "The Thing" with more than ACT, so you're not portable to other vendors. If a couple of other vendors were hip to it, then you'd have something there. Otherwise, it is no different than had it been named GNAT.Florist. > > > How many competing designs where there for the Ada language, before one > was "accepted"? For a container library, I think there is room for > several attempts before getting it "right". After all, Ada programmers > are much fussier about the quality and the design than in other > languages. I > think one needs to leave room for evolution and experimentation. Eventally, > an emerging accepted defacto standard is bound to emerge. I think, you > would agree that we would like it to happen a little sooner, that's > all! > BIG DIFFERENCE! The ultimate *CUSTOMER* was sponsoring the competition. They went off and recruited designers to develop the designs. The *customer* said "Here's what I have in mind - show me what your proposal is..." What you are suggesting doing is charging off without an identifiable customer or an identifiable set of requirements and building something with the hope that sooner or later a customer will stand up and say "Here I am..." and that the customer will then just so happen to have an *identical* set of requirements to whatever assumptions you made. I'm suggesting a) Get an identifiable customer up front to say "Yes, I'm interested in getting a library" and b) Get from them some set of desired requirements - even if its back-of-the-envelope sort of stuff. Do that *FIRST* before wasting time building something that perhaps nobody wants. > > So, I would suggest, let's attack some of the problems along the > way. Some of the larger problems may become easier to solve later. > Bug the vendors for sure, but don't entirely depend upon this. > Baby steps are fine. I just think the first and formost baby step needs to be "Find out which vendors are planning to continue developing their Ada compilers and find out if they want there to be some sort of CAL that they are willing to accept and play a role in developing." The rest can start to fall out of there. I think vendor participation is a necessary condition to starting anything. > I have always taken the approach of learning from doing. So I would > not discourage people from trying something new. Many projects may > end up as throw-aways in the end, but that does not mean the effort > is a wasted one. You seem to be worried about wasted effort(s). > Because efforts have been wasted before and I want to make a *different* set of mistakes this time around. If you keep trying to get through a wall by running headlong into it, would you be surprised if someone says "This is foolish. Why not look for a door or window before charging at the wall again..." These efforts have been tried before and the evidence is right out there in the Internet to look at. You can compare all the attempts and compare all the Ada implementations and you see that the attempts are not found in Ada implementations. If you want to go that route again - its your head that is going to hit the wall while I'm feeling around for the doornob. ;-) >> Yes, but just recall all the other various and sundry "Open Source" / >> Volunteer oriented projects of any stripe that get started out there. >> (Should we start a list?) > > > As I've pointed out earlier, a failed project is never completely > a failure. Someone/people have learned lessons from those undertakings, > even if it is just to understand their own level of commitment ;-) Yes, and from my "failed" projects, I've learned that you need to get the customer involved very early on. ;-) > > I think you are concerned that Ada resources are thinner, and so > you don't want to see that resource wasted. A valid concern. But > a certain amount of this so called "waste" is a necessary part of > any R&D. > But we've *Done* the "Waste" part already. Let's *Learn* from that and get the customer involved in it *Early* to avoid more waste. > > Well, I don't really have a plan (shrink), other than what I've > posted in earlier posts in this thread. You raised some interesting > ideas in your Ada Letters article, which might work. It would be > nice in fact, if that would work. Maybe I am showing my own > skepticism here, but I think for that to succeed, you'll need some > Richard Stallman type that is willing to lead that charge. It will > take a strong minded, vision incensed person to make sure that it > is realized. Are you leading that charge? Perhaps you are holding > out on us? ;-) > Well, I don't know what I'm leading here if anything. But if a few folks representing vendors were to come to me and say "Please, Marin, with your sublime wisdom and vast vision, could you somehow or other find some way to devote some time to this???" I might be tempted to do so. I suspect they have their own visionaries they could count on better. :-) Why? You think they want to offer me a job? My premise is that if the vendors wanted to drive an effort to get a library, they could get one. If they are looking for volunteers, they could find some - but probably not enough to get it to market in a reasonable lenght of time or meeting requirements unless they have some paid-guidance overseeing the effort. The ideal situation would be to pay for the whole thing so you get exactly what you want and when you want it. If you don't have that kind of cash, then get creative about how to do it on a shoestring. A solution does exist. Do the vendors see it as a problem they want to solve? Is there interest in taking up the challenge? MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-22 13:04 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-22 16:46 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-22 17:13 ` Ed Falis 2003-10-23 5:21 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-22 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: >> BTW, I finally received my printed copy of the Ada Letters last >> week. Good work on the article. >> > Thanks. > > Maybe I ought to author something else related to that? If it ends up provoking some sort of "action", then why not? >> Apart from standards and the ARG, what about Win32Ada and FLORIST. I >> do believe that _some_ evidence does exist. FLORIST was started outside >> of ACT, though I don't know about the Win32Ada binding. >> > Except that neither one of those was some sort of "All Volunteer" effort > divorced from the vendors. Thus demonstrating exactly what I am hoping > ought to happen. Win32Ada was something that was built (I believe) By > Tucker Taft who was doing it for Averstar? Softech? That one, I am not really surprised by, due to the extent of the work that would is involved in that. Not to mention the maintenance of the same. > Florist has some ACT buy-in now and maybe had some > connection there I'm not aware of. But it (afaik) is not "The Thing" > with more than ACT, so you're not portable to other vendors. If a couple > of other vendors were hip to it, then you'd have something there. > Otherwise, it is no different than had it been named GNAT.Florist. No disagreement here really. Just don't forget however, that if people start depending upon FLORIST to be there for all of those Linux/UNIX projects out there, that the other vendors will at some point say, we need a port of that as well, because customers will be asking for it. Otherwise, I have no disagreement with your point. >> How many competing designs where there for the Ada language, before one >> was "accepted"? For a container library, I think there is room for >> several attempts before getting it "right". After all, Ada programmers >> are much fussier about the quality and the design than in other >> languages. I >> think one needs to leave room for evolution and experimentation. >> Eventally, >> an emerging accepted defacto standard is bound to emerge. I think, you >> would agree that we would like it to happen a little sooner, that's >> all! >> > > BIG DIFFERENCE! The ultimate *CUSTOMER* was sponsoring the competition. You are correct about that. But I maintain that you can still have a "bake off", without sponsorship, or even a limited sponsorship could work (maybe some sort of prize). > They went off and recruited designers to develop the designs. Open source leaves out designers? > The > *customer* said "Here's what I have in mind - show me what your proposal > is..." OK, so we are back to the concensus thing. > What you are suggesting doing is charging off without an > identifiable customer or an identifiable set of requirements and Whoa, there matie! Remember earlier, I suggested that some guidelines for the bake-off needed to be specified up front (aka specification), from some sort of identifiable group of interested parties (aka "customer"). But let the project groups refine and polish the specs, with the hope of being selected as winner. I never promote the idea of charging off to face the windmills! Some Open Sourced development works that way, but it hardly needs to be that way. > Get an identifiable customer up > front to say "Yes, I'm interested in getting a library" That has already been clearly identified. > and b) Get from > them some set of desired requirements - even if its back-of-the-envelope > sort of stuff. Right. I am not saying we just form teams to come up with a design, without some sort of guidelines. You can't have a meaningful contest that way. ;-) You are trying to put words in my mouth, and they don't taste too good. > Do that *FIRST* before wasting time building something > that perhaps nobody wants. I'm not disagreeing. In fact, I think we're in agreement on this point. You just said yourself that "even if its back-of-the-envelope sort of stuff", which is possibly enough to start a competition. That is exactly the idea I was promoting, but you keep accusing me of charging off and wasting effort. ;-) > Baby steps are fine. I just think the first and formost baby step needs > to be "Find out which vendors are planning to continue developing their > Ada compilers And what if the answer is that most of them are not? Are you going to stop pushing? What if you can't get an honest answer to that question? Are you going to stop trying? I think this is a reasonable thing to know, but I am just a little skeptical that you'll get an answer, or the one you want to hear. > and find out if they want there to be some sort of CAL > that they are willing to accept and play a role in developing." The rest > can start to fall out of there. I think vendor participation is a > necessary condition to starting anything. Your point is a valid one, but let's just agree to see things differently. The way I personally see it, the customer demand can drive this point, without starting with the vendors. >> I have always taken the approach of learning from doing. So I would >> not discourage people from trying something new. Many projects may >> end up as throw-aways in the end, but that does not mean the effort >> is a wasted one. You seem to be worried about wasted effort(s). > > Because efforts have been wasted before and I want to make a *different* > set of mistakes this time around. No disagreement here. > If you keep trying to get through a > wall by running headlong into it, would you be surprised if someone says > "This is foolish. Why not look for a door or window before charging at > the wall again..." Well, if someone chooses to recreate a past mistake, then that reflects on the person or team. Not the need for a solution. > These efforts have been tried before and the evidence > is right out there in the Internet to look at. Which is why it is not necessarily a foregone conclusion that any next effort has to be a waste. Hopefully, people/teams can learn from what's available on the Internet. You seem to be implying that people don't or can't learn from history. You might even be right, but I don't quite see it this way. ;-) > You can compare all the > attempts and compare all the Ada implementations and you see that the > attempts are not found in Ada implementations. I am not sure what you're saying here. Are you talking about failed Ada container libraries here, vs where they have succeeded else where? Please clarify. > If you want to go that > route again - its your head that is going to hit the wall while I'm > feeling around for the doornob. ;-) No, I have no personal plans to bang my head against the wall. I used to do that when I was 4 years of age, until my mother finally cured me of it by saying "Go ahead! Bang it again!" I think I can honestly say that I am cured for life ;-) >>> Yes, but just recall all the other various and sundry "Open Source" / >>> Volunteer oriented projects of any stripe that get started out there. >>> (Should we start a list?) >> >> As I've pointed out earlier, a failed project is never completely >> a failure. Someone/people have learned lessons from those undertakings, >> even if it is just to understand their own level of commitment ;-) > > Yes, and from my "failed" projects, I've learned that you need to get > the customer involved very early on. ;-) No disagreement. But surely, *we* as the customer can *know* what we want. Reaching concensus might be challenging, but that is part of a necessary process. > Well, I don't know what I'm leading here if anything. But if a few folks > representing vendors were to come to me and say "Please, Marin, with > your sublime wisdom and vast vision, could you somehow or other find > some way to devote some time to this???" I might be tempted to do so. I > suspect they have their own visionaries they could count on better. :-) > Why? You think they want to offer me a job? I can't dismiss that possibility, but I was thinking more of someone leading the charge with the "Let's set up a Ada Corporation for shared software" type of thing, that you described in your article (which I'm not articulating from memory very well here). I think someone will have to lead the charge with a Stallman like vision, and determination. Vision without determination is likely to fade away. > My premise is that if the vendors wanted to drive an effort to get a > library, they could get one. The problem with this is that the vendors don't really care, unless they see some pot of gold at the end of that rainbow. For them, I see this as only an incremental gain, unless one looks at a long range successful forecast. The big payoff is in the customer's court. This is why the customer wants it. For the vendors, it just means more to support, and a little more to charge for (some balance between customer need and cost has to be reached). > If they are looking for volunteers, they > could find some - but probably not enough to get it to market in a > reasonable lenght of time or meeting requirements unless they have some > paid-guidance overseeing the effort. The ideal situation would be to pay > for the whole thing so you get exactly what you want and when you want > it. If you don't have that kind of cash, then get creative about how to > do it on a shoestring. A solution does exist. Do the vendors see it as a > problem they want to solve? Is there interest in taking up the challenge? > > MDC I can only really speak from a GNAT perspective, and the signs seem encouraging from ACT. Is this enough? Will it drive the other vendors to follow? These are tough questions to answer. I think we are not that far apart in our thinking, but perhaps where we place our trust is different. I prefer to take the reins approach, where you are happy to put it in the hands of the vendors, with a channel for input. I could live with either approach, as long as it sees results. But I know that your point is partly that we're all tired of waiting for a solution. So I guess if I was to summarize my point in response it would be simply this: "don't dismiss the open sourced route, simply because it has been tried, and been unfunded. While the past is often an indicator of what is likely, it does not necessarily predispose it to failure." I think the last sentence is where we mostly disagree. ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-22 16:46 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-22 17:13 ` Ed Falis 2003-10-23 5:23 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-23 5:21 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 2003-10-22 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:46:53 -0400, Warren W. Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote: >> Except that neither one of those was some sort of "All Volunteer" >> effort divorced from the vendors. Thus demonstrating exactly what I am >> hoping ought to happen. Win32Ada was something that was built (I >> believe) By Tucker Taft who was doing it for Averstar? Softech? > > That one, I am not really surprised by, due to the extent of the > work that would is involved in that. Not to mention the maintenance > of the same. Actually, Mitch Gart did that binding, when he worked at Intermetrics, prior to the Averstar absorption of the former. - Ed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-22 17:13 ` Ed Falis @ 2003-10-23 5:23 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-23 13:55 ` Ed Falis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-23 5:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Wasn't it auto-generated from some sort of C-Header-File-To-Ada Translator? I was under the impression it was done that way to make it easy to generate new releases as Micro$oft (a.k.a. The Borg) issued new releases of their Win32api. MDC Ed Falis wrote: > > Actually, Mitch Gart did that binding, when he worked at Intermetrics, > prior to the Averstar absorption of the former. > > - Ed -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-23 5:23 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-23 13:55 ` Ed Falis 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 2003-10-23 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:23:51 GMT, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote: > Wasn't it auto-generated from some sort of C-Header-File-To-Ada > Translator? I was under the impression it was done that way to make it > easy to generate new releases as Micro$oft (a.k.a. The Borg) issued new > releases of their Win32api. I believe it turned out that there was a fair amount of post-massaging to do to it, which inkibited keeping it up to date. I had the same kind of problem with the JDK bindings I did for use with AppletMagic. - Ed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-22 16:46 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-22 17:13 ` Ed Falis @ 2003-10-23 5:21 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-27 17:37 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-23 5:21 UTC (permalink / raw) O.K. I'm not dismissing an Open Source route, and I'm not dismissing an all-volunteer, unpaid, organically grown route either. What I *am* dismissing is the idea that we can somehow survey all the Ada users out there and come up with a coherent set of requirements on which to base it. I'm dismissing the notion that once implemented, all those Ada users are then going to drop what they *are* using in favor of the library put out there. I'm further dismissing the idea that the vendors will then see the light and get on board and start distributing it. We've been down a route that was some version of "Lets get everyone's consensus on what they want and then try to come up with something that will be adopted by all..." Its been tried more than once. There is no standard library being shipped by vendors as a result of that. That's why I'm saying lets try a *different* route - one that would be to get the *vendors* to act as "Customer Representatives" and stipulate what it is they want to see done. (Think of it as a Republic rather than a Democracy) The vendors are in a good position to know what sort of requirements their customers might have and - rather than try to get a consensus from a few thousand users - you get it from a handful of representatives. Given that you might get requirements from the vendors as customer representatives, one would presume that they would bundle it and ship it to their customers once built. Doing that would go an *IMENSE* way towards making the library a de-facto standard because people tend to use what they get with their compiler rather than try to go use something they just glommed off the Internet. They might complain that it wasn't done the way they wanted it done (I do that here from time to time, don't I?) or that it could have been better or that it excluded their pet features - but they'd USE IT because it was there and of good quality. That's where I see the critical difference and where it is that we apparently disagree - you want to start with a few hundred or more requirements writers and hope that consensus across a few thousand (or more) users is going to result, thus bringing the vendors on board. I want to start with 2, 3, 4 vendors and let them bring the customers/end users on board. Your approach has been tried a number of times and not resulted in much. Mine has yet to be tried and may fail for a whole different batch of reasons - but they will be *different*. :-) MDC Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > So I guess if I was to summarize my point in response it would be > simply this: "don't dismiss the open sourced route, simply because > it has been tried, and been unfunded. While the past is often an > indicator of what is likely, it does not necessarily predispose > it to failure." I think the last sentence is where we mostly > disagree. ;-) > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-23 5:21 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-27 17:37 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-28 1:53 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-27 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > O.K. I'm not dismissing an Open Source route, and I'm not dismissing an > all-volunteer, unpaid, organically grown route either. What I *am* > dismissing is the idea that we can somehow survey all the Ada users out > there But you don't need _all_. Vendors won't get all users input either. > and come up with a coherent set of requirements on which to base > it. This is not unachievable either. Pleasing everyone is unachievable, but surely some sort of compromise can be reached. > I'm dismissing the notion that once implemented, all those Ada users > are then going to drop what they *are* using in favor of the library put > out there. Yes, but so what? This is totally irrelevant, IMO. > I'm further dismissing the idea that the vendors will then > see the light and get on board and start distributing it. Now there's a point. I don't believe it, but you obviously do. Maybe you're even right about this, but because this is not carved in stone, I don't see it as a reason to pause. > We've been down a route that was some version of "Lets get everyone's > consensus on what they want and then try to come up with something that > will be adopted by all..." Its been tried more than once. I've seen the same process worked through major corporations. If you insist that _all_ interested parties agree on a set of requirements, the project is then almost doomed to failure. One way to get a better concensus is to form smaller teams. Solicit input from the entire community, yes. But at the project level, only allow the contributors to the project deem what is going to be accepted, or not, or to require more R&D. You must eliminate those that only raise obsticals, from holding the progress of the project up. Sadly, many IT people are good at raising issues/problems, but few are willing to make good suggestions (and even fewer, to contribute to those suggestions). So I would suggest, those that are not contributing, do not have a direct say in the project (again, input is OK, but they do not hold things back). > There is no > standard library being shipped by vendors as a result of that. Well, I don't think it is quite that simple. One firm is not going to develop and ship a toolset, if another is going to develop and ship a different set. So in the end, nobody does. There are probably a number of other reasons as well. > That's > why I'm saying lets try a *different* route Agreed. > - one that would be to get > the *vendors* to act as "Customer Representatives" and stipulate what it > is they want to see done. (Think of it as a Republic rather than a > Democracy) The vendors are in a good position to know what sort of > requirements their customers might have and - rather than try to get a > consensus from a few thousand users - you get it from a handful of > representatives. I'm not against this, but only skeptical of it. ;-) > Given that you might get requirements from the vendors as customer > representatives, one would presume that they would bundle it and ship it > to their customers once built. But how are you going to get the vendors to make it a priority, and work together with other vendors? > That's where I see the critical difference and where it is that we > apparently disagree - you want to start with a few hundred or more > requirements writers and hope that consensus across a few thousand (or > more) users is going to result, thus bringing the vendors on board. I > want to start with 2, 3, 4 vendors and let them bring the customers/end > users on board. Your approach has been tried a number of times and not > resulted in much. Mine has yet to be tried and may fail for a whole > different batch of reasons - but they will be *different*. :-) > > MDC I am not convinced (yet) that all has been tried on the volunteer side. You might be right in saying there is not enough volunteer resources (Ada-wise) and you might be right in saying we can't reach a concensus. But I am not convinced that it otherwise that it could not work. 8-) I do applaud your efforts for trying to get something to happen. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-27 17:37 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-28 1:53 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-28 1:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Well, we've had a variety of all volunteer efforts aimed at developing something that had some community acceptance that would eventually get the vendors on board. As I've observed, despite these efforts, we don't have a library. That's why I remain skeptical of another effort to get a bunch of guys together and develop another library on speculation with no indication from the vendors or the ARG or anybody else in a position to impose a standard that they'd even be remotely interested. If the answer is "No" from the start, I don't want to waste my time. I applaud anyone who wants to develop a library. I'm suggesting that if the people in a position to actually make such a library into a "standard" were interested, it would get a lot further. MDC Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > I am not convinced (yet) that all has been tried on the volunteer > side. You might be right in saying there is not enough volunteer > resources (Ada-wise) and you might be right in saying we can't > reach a concensus. But I am not convinced that it otherwise that > it could not work. 8-) > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-15 16:24 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-15 17:57 ` Ed Falis 2003-10-15 20:44 ` Mark A. Biggar @ 2003-10-16 12:38 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-16 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-16 12:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > IFF you get this kind of answer from some, most or all of the vendors, > then I would agree that you have a "point". But IMHO, this is unlikely > first of all (its not in their interest to go against what the user > base wants), and certainly not a foregone conclusion. Note the "FF" > in "IFF". > Yeah, but AFAIK, they have not said what they *do* want and (assuming they are the initial "customers" you're trying to satisfy) charging off to build something on pure speculation without knowing what the customer wants is a most profound - if not outright sinful - waste of time. Like I've observed elsewhere - we have libraries out there already. Any one of them could be adopted as the basis on which to build. This has not happened. There must be *something* about that path that the vendors are not terribly fond of. So before building Yet Another Ada Library and hoping to get all the Booch and Charles and Etc., users to switch to that and show the vendors that they must get on board because all their customers are doing so, why not just ask the vendors what they'd want to see done first? > 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". I think customers if surveyed, would indicate that they would want *some* kind of library. 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. 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 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. Someone with some "clout" has to drive the development and I see that as being the vendors. 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 -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 12:38 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-16 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-16 18:02 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-16 18:04 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-16 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: >> IFF you get this kind of answer from some, most or all of the vendors, >> then I would agree that you have a "point". But IMHO, this is unlikely >> first of all (its not in their interest to go against what the user >> base wants), and certainly not a foregone conclusion. Note the "FF" >> in "IFF". >> > Yeah, but AFAIK, they have not said what they *do* want and (assuming > they are the initial "customers" you're trying to satisfy) charging off > to build something on pure speculation without knowing what the customer > wants is a most profound - if not outright sinful - waste of time. 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 ;-) > Like I've observed elsewhere - we have libraries out there already. Any > one of them could be adopted as the basis on which to build. 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... > This has > not happened. There must be *something* about that path that the vendors > are not terribly fond of. 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. 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 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. 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. > So before building Yet Another Ada Library and > hoping to get all the Booch and Charles and Etc., users to switch to > that and show the vendors that they must get on board because all their > customers are doing so, why not just ask the vendors what they'd want to > see done first? 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. >> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-16 18:02 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-16 18:23 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-17 0:36 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-16 18:04 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-16 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9835 bytes --] -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> 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 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 18:02 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-16 18:23 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-17 0:36 ` Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-16 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10651 bytes --] Sorry but my daughter accidentaly sent my last post before I finished answering all the issues so I continue here :-). (2 years old and she can already send an email sheesh hehe). -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com "Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net> wrote in message news:h3Bjb.17267$zw4.9742@nwrdny01.gnilink.net... > > > -- > St�phane Richard > "Ada World" Webmaster > http://www.adaworld.com > > > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> 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? > :-) > > > Yes, consensus seems to be the problem. *** Indeed but that's because libraries were started without being discussed first I think. At least it's usually the result of developing without discussing :-). > > > > > 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. *** I second that ;-) > > > > 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. > > *** Perhaps, where are those senior members? :-). > > > > 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? > > *** Good question. :-) only way to fix it is to reach the given consensus. Like I said I think we all have a pretty similar vision of what the library should have. so perhaps that's not where the problem lies. Getting paid for it seems to be an issue to some Getting support from vendors or organizations seems to be another (by support I mean someone somewhere saying we're on teh right track and here's why. *** What do these other lbirary projects have? maybe that should be our "Not To Do" list to start with? Although someof them we'd need like standard data structures (stacks queues etc etc). but other than that what's missing in the other lbirary projects? *** As I mentionned on another post, I gave a pretty good list of what I wanted (not the hierarchy I started but another list of missing I noticed from Ada. perhaps we can start from that too or add that to the list of things to do? > > 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. *** You sure seem to be, I am definitaly, Marin is too for a nominal fee ;-)....Robert seems to be interested too. I talked to a few people at APIWG and other SIG Ada Group members that like the idea (not sure how much time they could or would invest but they do think it's a good idea :-). > > > > 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? > > *** Again here would it be competition or elaborating different parts of the library instead? which would be a better usage of our time? :-) > > 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). *** I'm all for general use, it's my foundation for participating in the library in the first place. That's a big chunk of what's missing in Ada, general purpose lbiraries and components to build software that please a more general population (business and people alike). As in For games, maybe tools to help build business applications, (database and reporting tighly integrated somehow). And various other fields of applications. > > > > 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. *** I'm talking to ACT and seeing what can be done about it, I'll have to keep you posted or maybe at that point they'll keep us all posted if all goes well :-). > > > > Competition anyone? ;-) > > *** Got my gear ready :-). > > -- > > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG > > http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 18:02 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-16 18:23 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-17 0:36 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-17 1:24 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-17 1:40 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-17 0:36 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephane Richard wrote: > *** You sure seem to be, I am definitaly, Marin is too for a nominal fee > ;-)....Robert seems to be interested too. I talked to a few people at APIWG > and other SIG Ada Group members that like the idea (not sure how much time > they could or would invest but they do think it's a good idea :-). I have probably spent more time talking here than I should, and less time actually working on a library (or a registry). Getting the concepts right, and the library design right is worth a lot of effort, but too many decent efforts have died from too much discussion and not enough commitment. (In the sense of putting something on the table and either voting to accept it, or deciding how to improve it.) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-17 0:36 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-17 1:24 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-17 1:40 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-17 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1641 bytes --] "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3F8F3986.7000107@comcast.net... > Stephane Richard wrote: > > > *** You sure seem to be, I am definitaly, Marin is too for a nominal fee > > ;-)....Robert seems to be interested too. I talked to a few people at APIWG > > and other SIG Ada Group members that like the idea (not sure how much time > > they could or would invest but they do think it's a good idea :-). > > I have probably spent more time talking here than I should, and less > time actually working on a library (or a registry). Getting the > concepts right, and the library design right is worth a lot of effort, > but too many decent efforts have died from too much discussion and not > enough commitment. (In the sense of putting something on the table and > either voting to accept it, or deciding how to improve it.) > -- > Robert I. Eachus > > "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the > goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, > down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or > down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair > of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle > Maintenance by Robert Pirsig > You're right Robert. Absolutely Right. It's one of the reasons I create that hierarchy. To have something to start with...it's made to be deleted from, added to, rebranched, whatever it takes to get a basis of something we can all work on :-) -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-17 0:36 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-17 1:24 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-17 1:40 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-17 2:34 ` Stephane Richard 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-17 1:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Well, I could quit talking about it and maybe even devote some time to building it. Why not start with the Booch components? Or Grace? Or Charles? Or PragmAda? Or any of the others I've forgot to mention? Would the vendors get on board and say "If you guys shut up and start programming on top of XYZ library, we'll put it into our next release and start calling it the Conventional Ada Library..." I could get with that program, but I'd like to see some of the folks that matter say something about what they'd accept or reject. If none of those is suitable, then lets hear them say that - and then say something about what they *would* accept. I don't even think it would need to be all the vendors. Look at it this way: Some of the vendors are out there actively developing their compilers and looking to improve their toolsets. Others are content to "milk the cash-cow" - they have an Ada compiler to sell but don't see it as an important future product so they do as little as is necessary to support it. They may not even see enough potential there to make it worth their time to upgrade it to Ada0x, so do they even count? How many of the vendors fall into the first category? Who are they? What if we got just those vendors to discuss it and express some opinions on what they'd like? I don't think I'm asking for the moon and the sun and the stars here. Just some minimal display of interest and some guidance on priorities/requirements on the part of a small handful of vendors who stand to benefit by having their product improved at little to no cost to them - at least initially. Does that seem so unreasonable? I'd be happy to discuss it with them off-line. All it takes is to send me an e-mail. MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > > I have probably spent more time talking here than I should, and less > time actually working on a library (or a registry). Getting the > concepts right, and the library design right is worth a lot of effort, > but too many decent efforts have died from too much discussion and not > enough commitment. (In the sense of putting something on the table and > either voting to accept it, or deciding how to improve it.) -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-17 1:40 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-17 2:34 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-17 12:45 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-17 2:34 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5220 bytes --] "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F8F487E.80405@noplace.com... > Well, I could quit talking about it and maybe even devote some time to > building it. Why not start with the Booch components? Or Grace? Or > Charles? Or PragmAda? Or any of the others I've forgot to mention? Would > the vendors get on board and say "If you guys shut up and start > programming on top of XYZ library, we'll put it into our next release > and start calling it the Conventional Ada Library..." I could get with > that program, but I'd like to see some of the folks that matter say > something about what they'd accept or reject. If none of those is > suitable, then lets hear them say that - and then say something about > what they *would* accept. *** yes that would be a neat little insight to build on. no doubt about it. Is this the only sure way to go in the right direction? what do we aim with this library? To have something that can put Ada back in it's fair share of the market, whether embedded or general purpose wise. Am I right? as a general statement of course. :-) *** If I am right, then a simple comparison of the "popular" language's libraries and the ones for ada should be enough to elaborate a complete and detailed list of what's missing in Ada to at least provide the same feautres as the "popular" languages. no? *** In that frame of mind. We definitaly need libraries of all kinds, not just data structures like Charles, Mats Weber's Ada Component Library and the likes. what's missing? as far as bindings are concerned? well yes MIDI/Audio bindings (thin and more so a thick MIDI and DIgital Audio binding) for one. in the same field, bindings to popular Linux Sounds architectures like ALSA woudl be a good idea too so that Ada developers can exploit those fields of development. We have Engine_3D, AdaOpenGL, AdaSDL for the graphic side...how about libraries of 3D animated graphics? usign those bindings so that they can be exploited too. We got APQ right now for a Database BInding, it's getting pretty good too. But there's more to be done, and Database in the industry is a must and should be considered. There's no way that these ideas wouldn't help the outcome of the library itself because they are sought after features of the "popular" languages. > > I don't even think it would need to be all the vendors. Look at it this > way: Some of the vendors are out there actively developing their > compilers and looking to improve their toolsets. Others are content to > "milk the cash-cow" - they have an Ada compiler to sell but don't see it > as an important future product so they do as little as is necessary to > support it. They may not even see enough potential there to make it > worth their time to upgrade it to Ada0x, so do they even count? How many > of the vendors fall into the first category? Who are they? What if we > got just those vendors to discuss it and express some opinions on what > they'd like? > *** well since we do aim to have the library distributed with the compilers, we'd definitaly need some feed back from the vendors. No doubt about that either. we need to know from anyone (vendors and/or organizations) that we're heading in the right direction. but my first guess is that if we give Ada what it's missing when compared to the "popular" languages. It would be hard for anyone to say we're not on the right track. If not sooner in the library's development then later but these missing features should definitaly be implemented. *** and that's just as far as libraries go. There's other parts missing as well. At least some parts that need fine tuning at least :-)....Ada Core Technologies has GPS which seems to be a good all around Ada IDE that seems to integrate a good set of features expected in an IDE, but perhaps there 's more that could be integrated. and other tools (aplications) that could be developed to give ada developers even more flexibility and integration as per Ada and related technologies. > I don't think I'm asking for the moon and the sun and the stars here. > Just some minimal display of interest and some guidance on > priorities/requirements on the part of a small handful of vendors who > stand to benefit by having their product improved at little to no cost > to them - at least initially. Does that seem so unreasonable? > *** I can't help but agree that sooner or later, the vendors will have to get busy with this project. at least the ones that do plan on moving to Ada0X :-). They'll need to step in for two reasons. 1. The library is aimed at giving the compilers more features, hence more selling points. 2. To make sure we don't waste months developing something they already have in their currently added libraries/features. or their future projects too. And if there is a conflict they'll have to reach the decision to either tell us they got that side covered or redirect their efforts into a new project and use ours as long as no one (us or them) waste time doing the same thing. > I'd be happy to discuss it with them off-line. All it takes is to send > me an e-mail. > > MDC > > > -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-17 2:34 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-17 12:45 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-17 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephane Richard wrote: > > *** yes that would be a neat little insight to build on. no doubt about it. > Is this the only sure way to go in the right direction? what do we aim with > this library? To have something that can put Ada back in it's fair share of > the market, whether embedded or general purpose wise. Am I right? as a > general statement of course. :-) > The primary gopal ought to be to give the developer as much leverage as possible. The reason for that goal is to make Ada more attractive to select as the language of implementation on new products. It isn't the only thing that would make Ada more popular, but it is a significant thing. > *** If I am right, then a simple comparison of the "popular" language's > libraries and the ones for ada should be enough to elaborate a complete and > detailed list of what's missing in Ada to at least provide the same feautres > as the "popular" languages. no? > It doesn't hurt to generate ideas. Looking at existing libraries (those provided by other languages and those that are provided separate from the language) The problem is that you've got to be careful not to put the cart before the horse. You may want a stack of ideas to present to the vendors & their customers so they could pick from the list what their priorities would be, but you don't want to start designing or developing until you have done that critical step. > *** In that frame of mind. We definitaly need libraries of all kinds, not > just data structures like Charles, Mats Weber's Ada Component Library and > the likes. what's missing? as far as bindings are concerned? well yes > MIDI/Audio bindings (thin and more so a thick MIDI and DIgital Audio > binding) for one. in the same field, bindings to popular Linux Sounds > architectures like ALSA woudl be a good idea too so that Ada developers can > exploit those fields of development. We have Engine_3D, AdaOpenGL, AdaSDL > for the graphic side...how about libraries of 3D animated graphics? usign > those bindings so that they can be exploited too. We got APQ right now for > a Database BInding, it's getting pretty good too. But there's more to be > done, and Database in the industry is a must and should be considered. > There's no way that these ideas wouldn't help the outcome of the library > itself because they are sought after features of the "popular" languages. > Yes, libraries to cover all sorts of programming needs - not just data structures. But a) Data structures are what you're going to build the rest of the stuff on top of, so its an important foundation and b) you have to be careful not to get too ambitious and kill this with too much work. Here's a few relevant points: The ARG may get around to sticking some sort of container library into Ada0x. If they do that, we'd be wasting our time implementing something else or implementing anything that might be using containers. Better to find out what is likely to happen with the ARG *FIRST* before writing a single line of code. If you get to grandeose in the list of things to implement, it divides the attention and nothing will get done. Pick *one* thing to build as a first step. The rest of the list can be kept in your back pocket for when you've got something successfully built and in use. Given that it is not intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer what that one thing should be, you need to have the ARG/Vendors *tell* you what they want first. (Containers? Math? Network support? What isn't going to be in Ada0x and what is next on the vendors'/customer's wish list?) This is why I keep harping on the need to have early involvement by the vendors. If they *won't* tell you what they want or they *won't* accept what you build, you're going to go off and build a million lines of code that nobody in particular wants and its not going to accomplish anything. I don't have that kind of spare time in my life to waste. I want to make sure that if I *do* put forth some effort on this, that it stands a chance of succeeding. > > *** well since we do aim to have the library distributed with the compilers, > we'd definitaly need some feed back from the vendors. No doubt about that > either. we need to know from anyone (vendors and/or organizations) that > we're heading in the right direction. but my first guess is that if we give > Ada what it's missing when compared to the "popular" languages. It would be > hard for anyone to say we're not on the right track. If not sooner in the > library's development then later but these missing features should > definitaly be implemented. > But what is available in other languages (like C) is a *huge* amount of territory. The sheer magnitude of it is part of what makes it "popular". What customers are buying is the hugeness - in part. So let's think about this: In order to provide Ada users with what makes other languages popular, we have to develop a million lines of code. After devoting a few man-years to the effort, we find out that the vendors have no interest in the library because it doesn't meet their expectations. We've all quit our jobs and built this thing on speculation and are in divorce court over it, and the vendors don't want it????? That's why I'd refuse to write so much as a single line of code until I knew there was an interested customer out there. We're not talking about just a linked-list package here. Its got to be ***BIG*** to be useful and unlike a linked-list package, ***BIG*** is going to take more than a handfull of evenings and weekends to build. Note that Boeing doesn't just start building 747's "On Spec" and inventory them while waiting to see if any airlines want to buy them. They don't even start the engineering on a 747 without first talking to the airlines about what they're likely to want. You don't throw time and money into a big project without *FIRST* getting the customer on board with it. > *** and that's just as far as libraries go. There's other parts missing as > well. At least some parts that need fine tuning at least :-)....Ada Core > Technologies has GPS which seems to be a good all around Ada IDE that seems > to integrate a good set of features expected in an IDE, but perhaps there 's > more that could be integrated. and other tools (aplications) that could be > developed to give ada developers even more flexibility and integration as > per Ada and related technologies. > There's a whole lot of stuff that it would be good for Ada to have. However, what you're talking about here is what software companies would view as a whole product line. I absolutely am not against developing a whole product line. Libraries, GUI builders, IDEs, Developmental Tools,Operating Systems, End-User Applications, etc. But I have to *work* for a living and this is too much to consider on any sort of part-time, uncompensated volunteer work basis. I also am not going to go about doing fine quality engineering work for the benefit of some vendor as a "charity" cause - I'll go work in a soup kitchen and give my charity to the poor. Beyond getting something started, this job becomes *WAY* too big to be done strictly by uncompensated volunteers. It will need some kind of funding, but as I've observed, that need not be a huge amount and there might be ways of making it pay for itself. But until you discuss that with the potential "buyers" you have no clue and you're setting it up for failure. How you fund it is an open question, but I think if the vendors don't want to pay for it outright, they need to consider some other form of "back-end" compensation. See Robert Leif's "Ada Developers Cooperative License" articles in Ada Letters and some of the related things on http://www.softdevelcoop.org/ This may not be the ultimate answer, but it provokes some ideas about how the development might be funded with payment coming to the developers after it is actually successful. > > *** I can't help but agree that sooner or later, the vendors will have to > get busy with this project. at least the ones that do plan on moving to > Ada0X :-). They'll need to step in for two reasons. > ***!!!SOONER!!!*** not "Later". If you wait until later, you are a) going to waste lots of time and effort doing things you shouldn't be doing and b) set the whole thing up for failure because you didn't do what the vendors wanted. I won't stop anyone who wants to go off and build a library on speculation. I'll just give odds and take bets on its ultimate success and make a pile of money when it fails. My advice would be: "Go ahead and do the job - but be sure to do it in a way that optimizes the chances of success." That means getting the vendors involved early in the game. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-16 18:02 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-16 18:04 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-17 20:09 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2003-10-21 21:02 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-16 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw) But who should pick the "Winning Design"? I'd think that ought to be the vendors. Hence, I'd imagine them running the show and agreeing to deliver the end result. Otherwise, you're free to submit a design to me and I'll pronounce it "The Winner" and declare it to be "The Official Conventional Ada Library. What does that accomplish? Get something going with the vendors and I think you'll see a library result that starts to get shipped with compilers and used as "The General Answer" by most developers. I don't think it matters if the vendors form up a R&D group and fund it to do the job or get a SIGAda committee going and donate some of their staff to it or contract the job out or pick some volunteer effort as "The Winner" and start building on it. Long term, I think they're going to have to spend a few bucks to keep it going, but they're doing that already in most respects via the ARM and their own libraries. I see them as the key to picking a direction and adopting something to go there and making it be "The Standard Thing". Without their involvement, we'll just see more of the same. MDC Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > 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. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 18:04 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-17 20:09 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2003-10-20 17:40 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-21 21:02 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2003-10-17 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > But who should pick the "Winning Design"? I'd think that ought to be the > vendors. That would definitely be a good solution. 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. What do the competing library maintainers say to that suggestion? Jacob -- �But you have to be a bit wary of a ship that collects snowflakes.� -- Diziet Sma ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-17 20:09 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2003-10-20 17:40 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-21 20:55 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-21 22:46 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-20 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. 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. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-20 17:40 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-21 20:55 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-21 22:46 ` Stephane Richard 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-21 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-20 17:40 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-21 20:55 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-21 22:46 ` Stephane Richard 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-21 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2053 bytes --] "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3F941DE0.50906@comcast.net... > 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. > > 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. > > -- > Robert I. Eachus > > "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the > goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, > down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or > down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair > of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle > Maintenance by Robert Pirsig > A big "I Agree to the whole contents of this message :-) Even to your Quality is Buddha phrase ;-) -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 18:04 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-17 20:09 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2003-10-21 21:02 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-21 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > But who should pick the "Winning Design"? I'd think that ought to be the > vendors. Hence, I'd imagine them running the show and agreeing to > deliver the end result. Otherwise, you're free to submit a design to me > and I'll pronounce it "The Winner" and declare it to be "The Official > Conventional Ada Library. What does that accomplish? You are of course, entitled to that opinion. However, I would suggest that it not _necessarily_ be run that way. The vendor still will need to know what the users prefer. It seems to me that the users of the winning design should be involved in picking the winning design. A vendor is might just pick the path of least resistance, or lowest support cost design, while the user may be interested in a higher functionality profile etc. In the end the users must be satisfied, because they will not just swallow and use anything the vendors happen to provide. > Get something going with the vendors and I think you'll see a library > result that starts to get shipped with compilers Perhaps this much.. > and used as "The > General Answer" by most developers. I don't agree that this necessarily follows, except perhaps out of a developer path of least resistance. > I don't think it matters if the > vendors form up a R&D group and fund it to do the job or get a SIGAda > committee going and donate some of their staff to it or contract the job > out or pick some volunteer effort as "The Winner" and start building on > it. Long term, I think they're going to have to spend a few bucks to > keep it going, but they're doing that already in most respects via the > ARM and their own libraries. I see them as the key to picking a > direction and adopting something to go there and making it be "The > Standard Thing". Without their involvement, we'll just see more of the > same. > > MDC The only thing I see as being critical to the winning design, is a reference implementation. After all, any grandiose design can have the trappings of being the best on paper, but be a dog in binary form. Given an effective reference implementation, it is mostly up to the users what they really want. If the users tell the vendors they want X, then the vendors won't have any trouble with X if it is indeed practical to provide and support. It obviously helps if the vendords love it, but I hardly think this is a requirement. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 5:17 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 16:38 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-10 18:44 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 14:42 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > > You meant Ada.Containers, right? Of course, if it is necessary, one > > could be a renaming of the other. > > > Nope. Nothing under Ada unless the ARM explicitly makes it legal to > extend things under the root package Ada. There are times I'd have liked > to extend things under the root package Ada - except its illegal to do > that. If you've got an Ada.Containers, you'd like some end user to a) > have source for Ada.Containers and b) be able to tweak or adjust it or > extend it with whatever good ideas he may have. (Like maybe > Ada.Containers.Realtime? Or Ada.Containers.Bounded?) If this is > difficult to allow, then start another tree that is totally independent > and under which it *is* possible to extend. That is why I mentioned renaming. But if there is an Ada.Containers, then I think it should be used in preference to CAL.Containers. By the way, the ARM A.2(4) says that: "In the standard mode, it is illegal to compile a child of package Ada." But don't take that to mean what it doesn't say. The AARM adds a reason, a ramification, and an Implementation Note: Reason: The intention is that mentioning, say, Ada.Text_IO in a with_clause is guaranteed (at least in the standard mode) to refer to the standard version of Ada.Text_IO. The user can compile a root library unit Text_IO that has no relation to the standard version of Text_IO. Ramification: Note that Ada can have non-language-defined grandchildren, assuming the implementation allows it. Also, packages System and Interfaces can have children, assuming the implementation allows it. Implementation Note: An implementation will typically support a nonstandard mode in which compiling the language defined library units is allowed. Whether or not this mode is made available to users is up to the implementer. The reason and the ramification are very important here. In standard mode, you are guaranteed that Ada.Text_IO is the standard Ada.Text_IO. But if there is a container library in Ada, adding children, especially children that extend the original package is allowed. (Incidently, the real, intended, rule is that vendors should have a special mode for recompiling the standard libraries, and replacing library units and their children defined in the RM should not otherwise be possible.) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 18:44 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-11 14:42 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-11 15:10 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-11 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw) I understand and anticipated that there would be a valid reason for not allowing extensions to Ada. That's why I raised the issue and was looking for something that would get around that. Note that the ARM doesn't appear to say "Thou shalt provide a mode under which a common, ordinary, garden-variety user can extend and modify packages under Ada...". Hence there may not be. There may be no source delivered for things under Ada. There may be no method provided to recompile the source even if it is provided. The source may not even be in Ada - it could be in C or assembler or in Jovial for all that the standard has to say about it. I think its essential that the end user have the library in source code and be allowed to play with it. If you figure out a way that this can be done, I'll accept that. I just want a guarantee that whatever tree it gets built under, I get the whole source for the tree and can modify or extend anything in that tree. Is that a reasonable requirement for a library? MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > That is why I mentioned renaming. But if there is an Ada.Containers, > then I think it should be used in preference to CAL.Containers. > > By the way, the ARM A.2(4) says that: "In the standard mode, it is > illegal to compile a child of package Ada." > > But don't take that to mean what it doesn't say. The AARM adds a > reason, a ramification, and an Implementation Note: > > Reason: The intention is that mentioning, say, Ada.Text_IO in a > with_clause is guaranteed (at least in the standard mode) to refer to > the standard version of Ada.Text_IO. The user can compile a root library > unit Text_IO that has no relation to the standard version of Text_IO. > > Ramification: Note that Ada can have non-language-defined grandchildren, > assuming the implementation allows it. Also, packages System and > Interfaces can have children, assuming the implementation allows it. > > Implementation Note: An implementation will typically support a > nonstandard mode in which compiling the language defined library units > is allowed. Whether or not this mode is made available to users is up to > the implementer. > > The reason and the ramification are very important here. In standard > mode, you are guaranteed that Ada.Text_IO is the standard Ada.Text_IO. > But if there is a container library in Ada, adding children, especially > children that extend the original package is allowed. (Incidently, the > real, intended, rule is that vendors should have a special mode for > recompiling the standard libraries, and replacing library units and > their children defined in the RM should not otherwise be possible.) -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 14:42 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-11 15:10 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 17:58 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-12 0:51 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-11 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1428 bytes --] "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F8816EB.1010009@noplace.com... > I understand and anticipated that there would be a valid reason for not > allowing extensions to Ada. That's why I raised the issue and was > looking for something that would get around that. > > Note that the ARM doesn't appear to say "Thou shalt provide a mode under > which a common, ordinary, garden-variety user can extend and modify > packages under Ada...". Hence there may not be. There may be no source > delivered for things under Ada. There may be no method provided to > recompile the source even if it is provided. The source may not even be > in Ada - it could be in C or assembler or in Jovial for all that the > standard has to say about it. > > I think its essential that the end user have the library in source code > and be allowed to play with it. If you figure out a way that this can be > done, I'll accept that. I just want a guarantee that whatever tree it > gets built under, I get the whole source for the tree and can modify or > extend anything in that tree. Is that a reasonable requirement for a > library? > > MDC > I think so, seems reasonable for me, but shouldn't it basically depend on the licence? or would anything in there have the same licence? or an OpenSource Based licence so to speak so that it is available? -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 15:10 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-11 17:58 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-12 1:01 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 0:51 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-11 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw) I said: > By the way, the ARM A.2(4) says that: "In the standard mode, it is > illegal to compile a child of package Ada." > But don't take that to mean what it doesn't say. The AARM adds a > reason, a ramification, and an Implementation Note... Marin David Condic said: >Note that the ARM doesn't appear to say "Thou shalt provide a mode under >which a common, ordinary, garden-variety user can extend and modify >packages under Ada...". Hence there may not be. There may be no source >delivered for things under Ada. There may be no method provided to >recompile the source even if it is provided. The source may not even be >in Ada - it could be in C or assembler or in Jovial for all that the >standard has to say about it. Um, yes, the ARM doesn't say that, and I like it that way. But I do think the paragraph I pointed to needs fixing, and I think that we will definitely end up with an Ada.Containers hierarchy that vendors--and users--should be allowed to extend. There are a couple of places where vendors are currently encouraged to add packages to Ada or modify the standard packages. It might be worthwhile to pull all of those together in one place, as well as their current locations: A.3.3(31): "An implementation may provide additional packages as children of Ada.Characters, to declare names for the symbols of the local character set or other character sets." A.5.1(48): "The nongeneric equivalent packages may, but need not, be actual instantiations of the generic package for the appropriate predefined type." A.15(21): "An alternative declaration is allowed for package Command_Line if different functionality is appropriate for the external execution environment." Stephane Richard wrote: > I think so, seems reasonable for me, but shouldn't it basically depend on > the licence? or would anything in there have the same licence? or an > OpenSource Based licence so to speak so that it is available? I don't think that is an issue. If the specifications are in the standard, then providing an additional child package does not necessarily require knowing the contents of the package body, or even, to some extent, the contents of the private part of the package. So I think we are okay leaving this undefined. If a compiler vendor wants to make it difficult for a user to extend a package defined in the standard, they can. But I don't expect the situation to come up. Most "sensible" extensions to Ada will be in places like Ada.Characters.XXX, Ada.Strings.XXX, Ada.Numerics.XXX, etc. These packages don't have a private part. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 17:58 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-12 1:01 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 1:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Just an observation: This basically says that the *vendor* can extend or tinker with particular parts of the package Ada and its offspring. (Q: Does that make them "Bastards?" Perhaps the way to extend the standard Ada packages is to add a new keyword: "bastard package Ada.Marins_Cool_Ideas is...." The process of making some child an official part of the ARM is "legitimizing the bastard"? :-) There isn't anything there that says a normal user without the near godlike powers of a compiler-writer is allowed to do so, nor that an implementation must give him access to these powers, nor even the source with which to do so. It might be a reasonable compromise to have a separate tree that looks like any garden variety library an end-user might build and then worry about incorporating parts in the Ada tree at a later point - perhaps as you suggest with a renaming. I just want to be sure that anything we might do is open to lots of flexibility and innovation without making it at all difficult for the end user to play games and make things better for themselves. Sticking things under the package Ada, seems like it might raise too many problems unless there are some rule changes. MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > > Um, yes, the ARM doesn't say that, and I like it that way. But I do > think the paragraph I pointed to needs fixing, and I think that we will > definitely end up with an Ada.Containers hierarchy that vendors--and > users--should be allowed to extend. There are a couple of places where > vendors are currently encouraged to add packages to Ada or modify the > standard packages. It might be worthwhile to pull all of those together > in one place, as well as their current locations: > > A.3.3(31): "An implementation may provide additional packages as > children of Ada.Characters, to declare names for the symbols of the > local character set or other character sets." > > A.5.1(48): "The nongeneric equivalent packages may, but need not, be > actual instantiations of the generic package for the appropriate > predefined type." > > A.15(21): "An alternative declaration is allowed for package > Command_Line if different functionality is appropriate for the external > execution environment." > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 15:10 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 17:58 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-12 0:51 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 1:17 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-12 1:20 ` Stephane Richard 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw) A license is something to worry about down the road. That's something the vendors would have to say something about anyway. At this point I'm concerned about the idea expressed by Robert Eachus that a Conventional Ada Library be a branch (or several) under the standard library "Ada". That is, "Ada.Containers" and "Ada.Statistics" and so on. This would be a wonderful thing since it provides something really natural. Except that under "normal" rules you are not allowed to extend the package "Ada" and you may not have everything you need to do it if you could. That's why I'm objecting. Put it under a separate library or change the rules for the "Ada" tree so that this is possible to extend and required that you get source. At this point, I'm just stating a perceived requirement that is something near and dear to my heart - and possibly others: For a Conventional Ada Library, I want to get the source code and I want to be able to modify/extend it at will with no special limitations. (Much like any of the existing container libraries floating around out there.) If Robert Eachus or someone else who is smarter than me (And Robert really is *way* smarter than me! :-) can figure out some rule change for the package "Ada" that gets me this requirement, I'm happy as a pig in fewmets. :-) If that's not possible, then I think a Conventional Ada Library ought to exist under its own tree. I suppose that Robert's suggestion about renamings might be a good compromise. Make some "Official" root (Let's call it "CAL") and start adding branches (like "CAL.Containers" and "CAL.Statistics") They go through some editor/publisher to make sure they meet requirements and are released with everyone's compiler in full Ada source. If at a later date, the ARG decides that, e.g. CAL.Containers, ought to be part of the Ada standard, you just do a "renames" to Ada.Containers (keeping the original) and now it is a fully standard, entirely official part of Ada, complete with its own chapter in the ARM and a full validation suite. That seems like something that ought to work reasonably well. Do you think? (It might have problems if it still exists in CAL and the end-user can modify it. Leave that to the language lawyers to sort out. *That* problem is *waaaaaay* down the road. We can burn that bridge when we get to it.) MDC MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > > I think so, seems reasonable for me, but shouldn't it basically depend on > the licence? or would anything in there have the same licence? or an > OpenSource Based licence so to speak so that it is available? -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 0:51 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 1:17 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-12 2:10 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 1:20 ` Stephane Richard 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-12 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3261 bytes --] "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F88A577.5000803@noplace.com... > A license is something to worry about down the road. That's something > the vendors would have to say something about anyway. At this point I'm > concerned about the idea expressed by Robert Eachus that a Conventional > Ada Library be a branch (or several) under the standard library "Ada". > That is, "Ada.Containers" and "Ada.Statistics" and so on. This would be > a wonderful thing since it provides something really natural. Except > that under "normal" rules you are not allowed to extend the package > "Ada" and you may not have everything you need to do it if you could. > That's why I'm objecting. Put it under a separate library or change the > rules for the "Ada" tree so that this is possible to extend and required > that you get source. > > At this point, I'm just stating a perceived requirement that is > something near and dear to my heart - and possibly others: For a > Conventional Ada Library, I want to get the source code and I want to be > able to modify/extend it at will with no special limitations. (Much like > any of the existing container libraries floating around out there.) If > Robert Eachus or someone else who is smarter than me (And Robert really > is *way* smarter than me! :-) can figure out some rule change for the > package "Ada" that gets me this requirement, I'm happy as a pig in > fewmets. :-) If that's not possible, then I think a Conventional Ada > Library ought to exist under its own tree. *** Would we need to stipulate that all you do need to do is rename it to make it part of the ada hiearchy? as in make sure you just globally rename it and it still works exactly the same? or do you not see a situation where this might be conflicting with anything already existing into ada? Basically treat CAL as Ada when naming libraries and at that point possibly making a copy of the Ada hierarchy into the CAL database to make sure they can't be named the same? If there's no imminent problems, than that idea is fine with me :-). let's see what others think. > > I suppose that Robert's suggestion about renamings might be a good > compromise. Make some "Official" root (Let's call it "CAL") and start > adding branches (like "CAL.Containers" and "CAL.Statistics") They go > through some editor/publisher to make sure they meet requirements and > are released with everyone's compiler in full Ada source. If at a later > date, the ARG decides that, e.g. CAL.Containers, ought to be part of the > Ada standard, you just do a "renames" to Ada.Containers (keeping the > original) and now it is a fully standard, entirely official part of Ada, > complete with its own chapter in the ARM and a full validation suite. > That seems like something that ought to work reasonably well. Do you > think? (It might have problems if it still exists in CAL and the > end-user can modify it. Leave that to the language lawyers to sort out. > *That* problem is *waaaaaay* down the road. We can burn that bridge when > we get to it.) *** Yes I believe that's a good way to go about it. Licenses will be licenses when they are licenses :-) . > > MDC -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 1:17 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-12 2:10 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 5:14 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 2:10 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephane Richard wrote: > > > *** Would we need to stipulate that all you do need to do is rename > it to make it part of the ada hiearchy? as in make sure you just > globally rename it and it still works exactly the same? or do you > not see a situation where this might be conflicting with anything > already existing into ada? Basically treat CAL as Ada when naming > libraries and at that point possibly making a copy of the Ada > hierarchy into the CAL database to make sure they can't be named the > same? If there's no imminent problems, than that idea is fine with > me :-). let's see what others think. > Let's get that cart *behind* the horse. :-) Suppose you had a package spec called "CAL.Containers.Lists" and it provided a simple, basic, run-of-the-mill linked list data structure. It gets packaged and shipped with every Ada compiler and might be periodically updated to fix bugs or add a few new features. No problem. Its not in the ARM, so nobody is going to get their panties in a bunch because the changes are "non-standard". Ultimately, you're no worse off than if you are hooking up to the Win32api - Micro$oft issues a new release and something changed and you've got to potentially go fix your code. No big deal - its done every day. Ten years from now when the ARM is getting revised again, ACT, Aonix, RR, et alia, all sit around in the smoke-filled room of the ARG headquarters and say, "We think that CAL.Containers.Lists needs to be incorporated into the standard and become "Ada.Containers.Lists"..." What's the problem? The ARM simply copies the spec, changes the names and adds a whole bunch of words that says "Ada.Containers.Lists must behave in this manner..." How you get it there is an implementation detail. Since the vendors already have CAL, they could copy & rename the source as needed. They could use a renames if they wanted to. It doesn't matter. In the mean time, the CAL library still contains a CAL.Containers.Lists and the editors of CAL have to decide what to do about it. They could declare it to be a feature that is superceded by the ARM and discontinue any modifications to it - basically pointing at its counterpart and advising you to use that as its successor for all new development. They could continue to modify and extend it to see if some new features become desirable & perhaps impact the next ARM. They could delete it and tell their users to either go with an earlier version of the library or convert to the ARM version. Its an incredibly TBD issue and it really doesn't matter today what direction it goes down. The point is that A Solution Does Exist, so don't try to figure it out *today*. > > > *** Yes I believe that's a good way to go about it. Licenses will be > licenses when they are licenses :-) . > Ultimately, if the vendors are distributing it, they will have all sorts of interest in exactly what license is used. They may all want the GMGPL. They may want it all in the public domain. They may want it with some kinds of restrictions so it can serve as a revenue source. (*Someone* has to pay to build it & maintain it. You'd better figure out how that's going to work because it will affect how you structure the deal & the license.) So get an understanding that says "Yeah, we're hip to this and want to do it..." Let them argue about what sort of license to put it under once they decide they want it. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 2:10 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 5:14 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-12 13:39 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-12 5:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Suppose you had a package spec called "CAL.Containers.Lists" and it > provided a simple, basic, run-of-the-mill linked list data structure. It > gets packaged and shipped with every Ada compiler and might be > periodically updated to fix bugs or add a few new features. No problem. > Its not in the ARM, so nobody is going to get their panties in a bunch > because the changes are "non-standard". Ultimately, you're no worse off > than if you are hooking up to the Win32api - Micro$oft issues a new > release and something changed and you've got to potentially go fix your > code. No big deal - its done every day. > > Ten years from now when the ARM is getting revised again, ACT, Aonix, > RR, et alia, all sit around in the smoke-filled room of the ARG > headquarters and say, "We think that CAL.Containers.Lists needs to be > incorporated into the standard and become "Ada.Containers.Lists"..." > What's the problem? The ARM simply copies the spec, changes the names > and adds a whole bunch of words that says "Ada.Containers.Lists must > behave in this manner..." How you get it there is an implementation > detail. Since the vendors already have CAL, they could copy & rename the > source as needed. They could use a renames if they wanted to. It doesn't > matter. > > In the mean time, the CAL library still contains a CAL.Containers.Lists > and the editors of CAL have to decide what to do about it. They could > declare it to be a feature that is superceded by the ARM and discontinue > any modifications to it - basically pointing at its counterpart and > advising you to use that as its successor for all new development. They > could continue to modify and extend it to see if some new features > become desirable & perhaps impact the next ARM. They could delete it and > tell their users to either go with an earlier version of the library or > convert to the ARM version. Its an incredibly TBD issue and it really > doesn't matter today what direction it goes down. The point is that A > Solution Does Exist, so don't try to figure it out *today*. Very good, but be aware that for Ada.Containers.Lists, the issue is not ten years down the road, it is probably December. In fact, I didn't go to the Halifax meeting, and Randy is probably typing busily away to provide the minutes and update the AIs to reflect what went on at the meeting. It is possible that the ARG could recommend an "official" Ada.Containers heirarchy as early as this December. If not, it may happen at the WG9 meeting in conjunction with Ada Europe next spring. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 5:14 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-12 13:39 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw) That's fine. That just means that CAL doesn't need a containers branch. (Unless there is some specialized need or Ada.Containers is not complete.) So change my previous example to "CAL.Statistics.Normal_Distribution" and re-read it. :-) BTW, if Ada0x is going to have a containers package, this is a good reason for avoiding the random inclusion of just anything anyone builds into the library: You want any library branch that makes use of containers in some form to use the standard ones. This is especially true where they are used in parameters or objects that the caller is going to see - internal data structures are of somewhat less concern. But even there, you want them to exhibit whatever properties are in Ada.Containers. I sure hope someone remembered to make the containers persistent through reading/writing to a file and/or converting to a stream. MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > Very good, but be aware that for Ada.Containers.Lists, the issue is not > ten years down the road, it is probably December. In fact, I didn't go > to the Halifax meeting, and Randy is probably typing busily away to > provide the minutes and update the AIs to reflect what went on at the > meeting. It is possible that the ARG could recommend an "official" > Ada.Containers heirarchy as early as this December. If not, it may > happen at the WG9 meeting in conjunction with Ada Europe next spring. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 0:51 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 1:17 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-12 1:20 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-12 2:32 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-12 1:20 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3406 bytes --] By the way, regardless of licensing, have you looked at the first draft? what do you think? -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F88A577.5000803@noplace.com... > A license is something to worry about down the road. That's something > the vendors would have to say something about anyway. At this point I'm > concerned about the idea expressed by Robert Eachus that a Conventional > Ada Library be a branch (or several) under the standard library "Ada". > That is, "Ada.Containers" and "Ada.Statistics" and so on. This would be > a wonderful thing since it provides something really natural. Except > that under "normal" rules you are not allowed to extend the package > "Ada" and you may not have everything you need to do it if you could. > That's why I'm objecting. Put it under a separate library or change the > rules for the "Ada" tree so that this is possible to extend and required > that you get source. > > At this point, I'm just stating a perceived requirement that is > something near and dear to my heart - and possibly others: For a > Conventional Ada Library, I want to get the source code and I want to be > able to modify/extend it at will with no special limitations. (Much like > any of the existing container libraries floating around out there.) If > Robert Eachus or someone else who is smarter than me (And Robert really > is *way* smarter than me! :-) can figure out some rule change for the > package "Ada" that gets me this requirement, I'm happy as a pig in > fewmets. :-) If that's not possible, then I think a Conventional Ada > Library ought to exist under its own tree. > > I suppose that Robert's suggestion about renamings might be a good > compromise. Make some "Official" root (Let's call it "CAL") and start > adding branches (like "CAL.Containers" and "CAL.Statistics") They go > through some editor/publisher to make sure they meet requirements and > are released with everyone's compiler in full Ada source. If at a later > date, the ARG decides that, e.g. CAL.Containers, ought to be part of the > Ada standard, you just do a "renames" to Ada.Containers (keeping the > original) and now it is a fully standard, entirely official part of Ada, > complete with its own chapter in the ARM and a full validation suite. > That seems like something that ought to work reasonably well. Do you > think? (It might have problems if it still exists in CAL and the > end-user can modify it. Leave that to the language lawyers to sort out. > *That* problem is *waaaaaay* down the road. We can burn that bridge when > we get to it.) > > MDC > > > MDC > > Stephane Richard wrote: > > > > I think so, seems reasonable for me, but shouldn't it basically depend on > > the licence? or would anything in there have the same licence? or an > > OpenSource Based licence so to speak so that it is available? > > > -- > ====================================================================== > Marin David Condic > I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ > My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm > > Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g > > "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, > live in houses just as big as they can pay for." > > --Logan Pearsall Smith > ====================================================================== > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 1:20 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-12 2:32 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 11:14 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 2:32 UTC (permalink / raw) I put a list of things I thought might make good topics for a library into the Ada Letters article I wrote. You might want to look at that. At this stage, I'd say that the only important thing is to start capturing ideas about what kinds of things *might* be good fodder for the CAL. Your list got a little too specific and as I have said elsewhere, I don't think much of bindings and I like less the idea of grabbing existing things from the Internet and trying to cobble them into a "Library". (Think about "why": If you had a dozen different existing libraries, what are the odds that they are using a dozen different container libraries? If the CAL has a container library, you would like everything else in the CAL to use *that* library - especially as it relates to interfaces the end user has to program to.) You're simply brainstorming here - that should be the goal. Think about packages or objects or subsystems you'd like to see. Don't worry about structure or trees or names - just get down concepts. (e.g. "I think it would be cool if in some way, some how, the CAL had a package or subsystem that let me parse XML files and build/maintain an XML DOM.") Don't worry about specifics and especially don't worry about incorporating specific existing libraries. Just get down "Requirements" and "Good Ideas" in a very general way. The reason is this: To do this right, you're not going to rush off and start hacking out code. You're going to ask the vendors and some potential customers what it is that *THEY* want to see in a library. You want to get *THEIR* lists of stuff. You might then hand them your list and say, "Is there anything in there that blows your skirt up? If so, what would *YOUR* priorities be?" Let the *customer* tell you what they want built. You've got limited resources and you want to build the things that the end users really want rather than waste your time putting things in that nobody wants to use. The best source for finding that out is to ask the vendors and their customers. Do some market research. It will pay in the end. After that, write some *requirements*. That will pay off too. By the time you've got some requirements, you'll be able to evaluate your ideas and existing libraries to see if they meet them. It will keep you from wasting lots of time in the end. MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > By the way, regardless of licensing, have you looked at the first draft? > what do you think? > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 2:32 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 11:14 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-16 13:18 ` aleistad 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-12 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6000 bytes --] "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F88BD31.6050906@noplace.com... > I put a list of things I thought might make good topics for a library > into the Ada Letters article I wrote. You might want to look at that. > > At this stage, I'd say that the only important thing is to start > capturing ideas about what kinds of things *might* be good fodder for > the CAL. Your list got a little too specific and as I have said > elsewhere, I don't think much of bindings and I like less the idea of > grabbing existing things from the Internet and trying to cobble them > into a "Library". (Think about "why": If you had a dozen different > existing libraries, what are the odds that they are using a dozen > different container libraries? If the CAL has a container library, you > would like everything else in the CAL to use *that* library - especially > as it relates to interfaces the end user has to program to.) > > You're simply brainstorming here - that should be the goal. Think about > packages or objects or subsystems you'd like to see. Don't worry about > structure or trees or names - just get down concepts. (e.g. "I think it > would be cool if in some way, some how, the CAL had a package or > subsystem that let me parse XML files and build/maintain an XML DOM.") > Don't worry about specifics and especially don't worry about > incorporating specific existing libraries. Just get down "Requirements" > and "Good Ideas" in a very general way. > > The reason is this: To do this right, you're not going to rush off and > start hacking out code. You're going to ask the vendors and some > potential customers what it is that *THEY* want to see in a library. You > want to get *THEIR* lists of stuff. You might then hand them your list > and say, "Is there anything in there that blows your skirt up? If so, > what would *YOUR* priorities be?" Let the *customer* tell you what they > want built. > > You've got limited resources and you want to build the things that the > end users really want rather than waste your time putting things in that > nobody wants to use. The best source for finding that out is to ask the > vendors and their customers. Do some market research. It will pay in the > end. After that, write some *requirements*. That will pay off too. By > the time you've got some requirements, you'll be able to evaluate your > ideas and existing libraries to see if they meet them. It will keep you > from wasting lots of time in the end. > > MDC > Indeed, In most ways, can't really disagree with that. Although I create a whole hierarchy, it's exactly what I did really. Stated a list of things I'd like to see in the library I just happened to "visualize' they're position in the hierarchy. For my list of things I want to see, look around, my list starts with what's missing in ada that's present in other languages (whether compilable like Delphi/Lylix, or scripting languages like Ruby and Python) as far as containers, data structures, libraries, seems GtkAda has taken the lead for a GUI library, how about a choice?, what else, there's so many. abd that just in categories that I have in the hierarchy. More at a language level, well yes, any containers are always welcome for one thing :-). Stacks, queues, dequeues, lists, collections (sorted or not), data dictionaries and the list goes on and on as far as data structures go. Also, perhaps a librarie that allows better control over a DOS or windows Console screen would be more than welcome :-). I have a binding to C's conio standard library that does things like you can do in any other DOS languages :-) Clear the screen, pick a color, position the cursor, turn the cursor on and off, etc etc...I'd like that in a standard way as in CAL.Screen_IO.<insert function name here> kinda fashion. If that can't be accomplished in a multiplatform fashion then perhaps based on each OS but with the same function names so that the code can be compiled and execute on every platform would be nice. Graphic wise there's Ada3D, AdaOpenGL, AdaSDL which seem to cover alot of grounds. I'm thinking a library similar to Allegro (which offers extreme 3D graphics rendering and animation) would be a big plus for Ada in the Gaming industry for example. With AdaSDL it should give you access to MIDI input / output (no?) perhaps a thick binding to MIDI and Digital Audio (direct and Streaming). woudl be good again for the game industry but the music industry as well. I could detail them in a list, sure, but to me, the first two thing that woudl give Ada a competitive edge are like I said, what's missing as compared to other languages (for that I could draw up a list of key features that are sought by developers when looking for a language for the job) I'll start on that right away, and for vendors (yes) but also other companies to start developing third party stuff for Ada like they would say for VB and Delphi, it would be nice since VB adn Delphi are ActiveX languages that they could add at least specification files for Ada for example :-). GNATCOM should be pushed further for one idea :-). Database Bindings are getting better and better Add SQL, SAMeDL, have you looked at APQ? Not sure hwo many generics and definitions they are, but to me APQ is somewhat on the right track to say the least :-).... With databases comes (almost hand in hand) reporting technology too. Someone mentionned CORBA and having all library elements come with an IDL, not a bad idea either, but since we're talking about Ada, I'd first integrate GLADE and develop for it. As a second phase to that I'd see about giving it CORBA support. Add to my list any possible trick and tip to make Ada programming even more faster. Gode generators for repetitive tasks for example. Perhaps a Windows API based Form designer that generates Ada Code based on perhaps Win32Ada or some other thin binding to the Windows API. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 11:14 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-16 13:18 ` aleistad 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: aleistad @ 2003-10-16 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw) "Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net> wrote in message news:OIaib.15742$0I6.10158@nwrdny03.gnilink.net... [snip] > With AdaSDL it should give you access to MIDI input / > output (no?) perhaps a thick binding to MIDI and Digital Audio (direct and > Streaming). woudl be good again for the game industry but the music > industry as well. Unfortunately there's no MIDI support in SDL. Are -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 20:31 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-07 21:56 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 22:12 ` tmoran 2003-10-07 22:37 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2003-10-07 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw) >Which is another problem plaguing >adapower.com; the search engine isn't very smart. Try the one at www.adaic.com/site/wide-search.html You can limit the search to www.adapower.com or not. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 20:31 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-07 21:56 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-07 22:12 ` tmoran @ 2003-10-07 22:37 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-10-08 16:03 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-09 13:28 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 4 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-10-07 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Stephen Leake wrote: > www.adapower.com tried that, with very limited success. Before that, > www.adahome.com had a similar idea. How is your site going to be > better? > > Part of the problem is that just because an Ada package is on a web > site doesn't mean it's a _good_ Ada package. So people don't want to > use it. > > ... > > I try to address this with my code by including unit tests. That > doesn't seem to be enough. > > If you are suggesting some sort of review process, where people commit > time to reviewing and approving stuff that goes into the library, then > you do need to get agreement on what deserves reviewing. That's what > the ARG is doing for proposed additions to the Ada standard. Those > guys are getting paid (at least in part) to do that. If you want a > reviewed library, you need to pay the reviewers, in some way; it's a > lot of work. Note that even a paid review may be not as good - for users. Reviewing for ARG and reviewing for users are very different things. Look at Amazon - how they provide information about books, movies etc. Usually there are very short annotations; occasionally there are professonal reviews (usually small); but what is most important, often there are *opinions* of those users who already tasted the product. Perhaps this is a proper way to deal with the issue. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 20:31 ` Stephen Leake ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-10-07 22:37 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-10-08 16:03 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-09 13:28 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 4 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-08 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake wrote: >> 2. Do we include such things as AdaCL and such data structure based >> libraries? > Of course. They are useful. But allow all of them; Booch, Charles, > SAL, Grace, etc. Yes a convinience pack with all of them would be good. Get all with one download. Only problem is: how do we get all the developers to drop to drop there own projects and move to one place (i.E. one cvs archive)? Mind you, I am pretty happy to do so. With Regards Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net http://www.ada.krischik.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 20:31 ` Stephen Leake ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-10-08 16:03 ` Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-09 13:28 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 4 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Jacob Sparre Andersen @ 2003-10-09 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake wrote: > One way to pay reviewers is to get the companies they work for to > allow them to spend company time reviewing code. I could do that for > some packages that are related to my work; anyone else out there in > the same situation? Yes. Jacob -- "The universe isn't for the likes of me to understand. I only work here." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 19:36 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-07 20:31 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-28 11:25 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-10-28 12:52 ` Marin David Condic ` (2 more replies) [not found] ` <1067340353.3441.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> 2 siblings, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2003-10-28 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 19:36, Stephane Richard wrote: > > Even if it were not distributed with compilers, having everything in one > > place as "The Ada Library" rather than bits and pieces here and there, > > it would be a great improvement over what we have now. > > I like the sound of that. We'd need a central place where all reusable > libraries, maybe that could be a good addition to Ada World... This thread is going in circles! Has it not been established already that this kind of effort would be "just another Ada website"? First there was adahome (?), then adapower, now adaworld. These sites were born and died in succession. Is there something essentially new about adaworld that will make it avert the same fate? No. For the 30th time (?), Listen to Marin and myself, for what this "something" might be: *commitment from Ada BIG players.* ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-28 11:25 ` Marius Amado Alves @ 2003-10-28 12:52 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-28 13:28 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-10-28 13:21 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-28 16:21 ` Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) Stephane Richard 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-28 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Well, there's nothing wrong with someone wanting an Ada website or an Ada repository of freebie code and maintaining this as a hobby. It certainly doesn't hurt anything. But that's all it will ever be - a hobby. If the *objective* is to create some sort of Ada library that will gain some official standing and become the de facto "Standard" Ada Library, then it will be just one more piece of evidence against using that approach. There have been people collecting up random bits of freebie code and making them available in libraries all the way back to Ada83. None of them have been adopted as the Conventional Ada Library. None of them have gained any consensus as to being "The Place To Go" to find common components. Any new attempts may not be a totally wasted effort, but they are about as likely to achieve the objective as all the rest of the attempts were. There's nothing wrong with freebie software or giving it away under the GPL and so on - depending on the objectives one has. Its just that when one is discussing a large project, the formula works most often only in certain circumstances: Someone builds a product that they need within their company and because it isn't part of the "Core Business", they decide to give it away hoping to gain benefits of sharing the product. Someone builds a big product as part of their PhD work and gives it away hoping it gains usefullness after the academic purpose was served. Someone builds a product in a business that they hope to market and they give it away in order to build a customer base for the related services. In each of the above examples, the software is a *byproduct* of some other intention or effort and, generally speaking, the people building it were *paid* to build it. You just don't see very many successful efforts to construct really large software products being done entirely by volunteers with the goal of giving it all away for the benefit of others. People have jobs and families and other responsibilities that keep them from devoting a thousand man-hours per year to an all-volunteer effort at which they will at best receive the undying gratitude of those they have benefited. Large software products don't get built for the fame and glory of it, nor is it a particularly good way to impress girls. :-) That's why I've been insisting that for a library of any significance to succeed, its going to need some kind of backing from the Powers That Be. Another all-volunteer "Lets Do It For The Good Of Ada" effort isn't going to go anywhere - at least not without *some* kind of support &/or acceptance from the vendors. MDC Marius Amado Alves wrote: > > This thread is going in circles! Has it not been established already > that this kind of effort would be "just another Ada website"? First > there was adahome (?), then adapower, now adaworld. These sites were > born and died in succession. Is there something essentially new about > adaworld that will make it avert the same fate? > > No. For the 30th time (?), Listen to Marin and myself, for what this > "something" might be: *commitment from Ada BIG players.* > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-28 12:52 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-28 13:28 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-10-28 23:20 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2003-10-28 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 12:52, Marin David Condic wrote: > ... That's why I've been insisting that for a library of any significance to > succeed, its going to need some kind of backing from the Powers That Be. ... This terminology is symptomatic of the lack of *one* Ada Consortium. There is *a lot* of Ada organisations (ARG, AdaIC, Ada-Europe). I can see a productive path in all these and the compiler providers (and through them, user representatives) uniting and forming a global Ada Consortium to deal with things like the CAL. I think Ada is currently too much "ISO-oriented". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-28 13:28 ` Marius Amado Alves @ 2003-10-28 23:20 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-28 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw) I wouldn't expect that an orgainzation oriented towards maintaining a "Standard" would jump on some bandwagon quickly. Any organization doing that kind of work has to see some stability. But a little guidance as to what would be acceptable for a standard would seem to me to be simple prudence. MDC Marius Amado Alves wrote: > > This terminology is symptomatic of the lack of *one* Ada Consortium. > There is *a lot* of Ada organisations (ARG, AdaIC, Ada-Europe). I can > see a productive path in all these and the compiler providers (and > through them, user representatives) uniting and forming a global Ada > Consortium to deal with things like the CAL. I think Ada is currently > too much "ISO-oriented". > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-28 11:25 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-10-28 12:52 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-28 13:21 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-28 16:21 ` Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) Stephane Richard 2 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-28 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3879 bytes --] "Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote in message news:mailman.232.1067340398.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org... > > This thread is going in circles! Has it not been established already > that this kind of effort would be "just another Ada website"? First > there was adahome (?), then adapower, now adaworld. These sites were > born and died in succession. Is there something essentially new about > adaworld that will make it avert the same fate? > *** Two things, one from the library itself which will server two different purposes. One from the APIWG which could and would use this library/architecture of ours as a central reference for naming conventions of their API. which gives it 3 purposes just on the library/reference side of things. > No. For the 30th time (?), Listen to Marin and myself, for what this > "something" might be: *commitment from Ada BIG players.* *** Well Ada World is far from dead, it was just born :-). As for the "Ada big players" Well in about an hour, I will be in contact with ACT with one goal, to know what they think of this library, if they see themselves using it provided it lives up to certain standards (which may or may not be the same as what governs the standard of Ada itself. If they are interested in such a project, what insught they could and/or would give us towards building a library that would answer more of the user's questions. I'll let you know more after I get the phone call. But to me it shows interest that they are willing to at least have a talk with me about it. :-) no? Curious at least? ;-) *** I'm well away of adahome, adapower's efforts towards a central library and repositories, but in my eye, what we are trying to do here differ from the past efforts in more than one way. 1. Although part of existing libraries and code out there may be incorporated into the library, (unless that lart has changed recently) they wont just be thrown intoa fiolder somewhere in the hierarchy and considered "integrated". They willb e filtered, reformatted, documented to at least a minimal degree that will render them easy to understand/use proficiently as a whole or as part of a bigger library. 2. As well as being a library and to be considered as such. It will also server as a central database (or other) of what's out there, a central reference of anything and everything that is out there not necessarily limited by data structures and bindings, but depending on the purpose of, maybe even applications. that can be used not only be the ARG or compiler vendors, but by aonyone else looking to create a library, binding or other to assure there is no name conflict which will also assure that the library has the foundations to grow instead of conflict with itself. 3. On the side of the APIWG there are still discussions and deisions to be made, but a member has suggested that, and I quote (as per a reply I received): "What we need is a repository that organizes the APIs in a generally agreed nomenclature, much like Java does it. A WG could come up with the nomenclature; you could run the repository". Just that side of could be useful too not just to the APIWG, but again to anyone else wanting to add an API without name conflicts or others. For these reasons which I'm sure ramifies into a multitude of inter related other reasons :-). I see a very different outcome to this effort than those attempted in the past. Things are moving along with Robert taking the initiative to build what he's building right now. Me, on my side as you can see, I'm looking at Robert's structures as you can now all do since he posted in to the group, and I'm also trying to see who's interested and what it could mean for the hence my discussions with ACT, the APIWG, a few other members from other WGs -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-10-28 11:25 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-10-28 12:52 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-28 13:21 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-28 16:21 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-28 23:37 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-02 15:09 ` Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player IRVINE) Stephane Richard 2 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-28 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6880 bytes --] I just got off the phone with ACT, a very constructive conversation might I add. There's many things to say so I'll try to be clear. however I'm french so if anything sounds foreign to you, let me know and i'll try to rephrase :-). Q: How open are they to the idea of the library as it seems to be direting itself so far? A: ACT (which does not speak for other vendors) have a list of preferences so to speak. 1. Their first point of research is the WG's hence if we can get the library (or I suppose parts of it) considered by any relative WG's it would be a big plus for the life of the library as far as ACT goes and perhaps it's relativaly safe to assume others as well (but I will confirm that as I will contact other vendors as well).. ACT mentionned and recognizes Charle's library they know it's been submitted (partly I believe) to the ARG and that really seems to give it a good plus. Again this is ACT's point of view, they do not speak for the others. so I'll find out from the others themselves :-) 2. Should their needs not be met by the WG's suggestions they would then be looking at good quality libraries (well organized, well documented, good quality code with clear code documentation and coding style reflected throughout the effort along with test programs or libraries to be able to test everything out). So just throwing existing code somewhere in the hierarchy of the library simply wont be looked at. Although a joint effort by many programmers, the code style and quality will need to be consistent thoughout the library. In the case of ACT they would need to be about to do two things. 1. Offer a good quality library as you may know, because at that point it would be a commercial quality library they would expect commercial quality code and documentation (which at that point makes sense :-). 2. They would also need to be able to offer full support of the library to their customers (which of course can't be achieved with poorly tested/documented code). If they can't see a possibility of both these conditions being met by a library effort, it wont be considered. However if it does meet these 2 conditions, it could very well be considered for inclusion with their compilers. NOTE: What this tells me is that we need to be aiming for the ARG and the WG's, not the vendors as far as where we throw the library first. get the ARG and it's WG's in there and the vendors will "follow" in quotes :-). By that I dont necessarily mean that they would be standarizing the library however. WG's govern what makes the Ada language, it's libraries well maybe we can talk to Charles about how that works :-). But ACT would advise in going the WG way as much as possible because it is their first place to look at. And they are ready to do a little trial and error as in take something built that they find interesting, incorporate it into their distributions and see if it has success or not. If yes, great, if not, well at least they tried :-). Which I believe answers Marin's financial concerns :-). Q: Did you, as a compiler vendor conduct any surveys or research, amongst your clients to see what they could possibly want in a library? A: Not really, they don't tend to get all that many requests from their clients in that respect either. But they did get some. as a standard library such things as a library to manage directories and files for examples...manage lists were asked for. It seems that no demand has been made for a very big list of things. individual things (like the directory management) is what they seem to get asked for However they don't rule out the possibility that for example customers might not feel confortable making this kind of request for any reason. Also if they haven't so far, they think they might soon, either existing customers, or new ones could start making demands also. To help me describe them the attempt (goal) of the library at least as a first part, I compared it to the inclusion of the STL as part of todays C++ compilers. Q: What would they, as compiler vendors, like to see in the library? A: To them, the library would need to somewhat avoid domain specific functionalities as a library. The contents of the library would need to remain I guess generic as much as possible. However he seemed open to business specific libraries built upon the generic standard libraries. For example Report generation libraries, statistics etc etc when I suggested such libraries to him. He added that perhaps, the reason why they weren't getting many request could be because in some parts, the clients developed solutions for themselves to fill in the current gaps that were not met by what was included in Ada and the included libraries. I guess here I can add, as per my experience, that if the customers start demanding for certain things, whether generic or not, if enough of them ask for it. it could become corporately viable to see about fulfilling that need as in (the infamous law of Offer versus Demand) :-). Like a friend once told me, he had a business tha tsold computers, and software....someone came in and asked for 1,000,000 rolls of toilet paper. There's money to be made in that so he got him 1,000,000 rolls of toilet paper....Offer and Demand at work here...:-). Q: What about more elaborate libraries that are missing when comparing Ada to such languages as C++, Delphi and the likes? A: Well of course anything that fills in a gap that is definitaly missing from Ada (and respect the quality control conditions mentionned above, good quality code and possibility of full support from them to their clients) could be considered. Again Offer and Demand would also be at play here. Q: What about even more sophisticated things. things that could entice other domains to be interested by Ada and bring new customers and customer types? A: They are not against this kind of thing at all. Who would be? ;-). As to what such libraries could contain? they couldn't say as they have not yet done any research as to what could bring in different types of customers. So Anything goes in this one. I talked to him about for example. Multimedia libraries Music (digital audio and MIDI), 3D engines and other such things to go get other industries so to speak, he definitaly liked that idea to see Ada possibly used in fields it's not being used right now. Very open to this idea. While maintaining the same 2 points of course, quality documented code and easily supportable by them to their clients. As I mentionned, these are the words and thoughts of ACT. therefore I will be contacting a couple other vendors to get their perspective on things and see what their thoughts are on this too. I think from this, it's looking good to get something worth it started. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-10-28 16:21 ` Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-28 23:37 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-29 1:12 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-29 14:35 ` Marc A. Criley 2003-11-02 15:09 ` Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player IRVINE) Stephane Richard 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-28 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw) So I feel a little vindicated. Here we have a vendor saying that they wouldnt' want something that was just slapped together from odds and ends collected from the Internet. They need something consistent and well documented. In all likelihood, ACT would not be unique in this respect. So again, I'd toss out the problem of "How do we put together such a library with little to no resources?" It might be possible to get something small going initially, but ultimately, it really has to be a professional, fully documented, high quality effort - not just something cobbled together from bits and pieces. I think there is hope in this message, but it demands something different than the existing proclaimed desires of "Lets get an all-volunteer effort together to build some library...". Whatever gets done is going to need some kind of professional look and feel that won't be accomplished by a bunch of rag-tag developers all submitting whatever they feel like building this week. It is a big undertaking that needs significant professionalism that I doubt is going to come from good intentions and spare time work. One other note: They are not seeing huge demand for some kind of big library like what might be found in Java, etc. If the end users start saying something along the lines of "We could use XYZ capability in a library somewhere..." and they were lobbying for it and willing to purchase support for it, then companies like ACT might be a little more motivated to do something about it. MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > > 2. Should their needs not be met by the WG's suggestions they would > then be looking at good quality libraries (well organized, well documented, > good quality code with clear code documentation and coding style reflected > throughout the effort along with test programs or libraries to be able to > test everything out). So just throwing existing code somewhere in the > hierarchy of the library simply wont be looked at. Although a joint effort -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-10-28 23:37 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-29 1:12 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-29 14:35 ` Marc A. Criley 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-29 1:12 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4064 bytes --] "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F9EFDC6.7050508@noplace.com... > So I feel a little vindicated. Here we have a vendor saying that they > wouldnt' want something that was just slapped together from odds and > ends collected from the Internet. They need something consistent and > well documented. In all likelihood, ACT would not be unique in this respect. > *** in all likelyhood, you're probably right, I guess the point isn't to have a library documented enough so that there's NO change needed to ba accepted by ano group or standard. the point is to basically offer a professional product...Like we discussed early in this library thread. Something coded with a minimal quality and minimum documentation to clearly state the purpose if it all and how to use it. Not a 20 page manual for every function here. Enough to get them going. Code beign the quality it would be, would then document itself at that level. Testing modules would be a big plus too. *** as far as documentation goes, as I said, I dont think they would want near ISO like documentation for this, enough so they can know what it does and how it's used basically, the rest the could learn from reading the code itself :-). > So again, I'd toss out the problem of "How do we put together such a > library with little to no resources?" It might be possible to get > something small going initially, but ultimately, it really has to be a > professional, fully documented, high quality effort - not just something > cobbled together from bits and pieces. > *** First duplicate code as least as possible. Let's not try to reinvent Charles library, but rather use it to our purposes (and other existing code, if we can use it, then we should. Provided it meets certain quality and documentation as discussed previously...if it's not documented enough, let's document them or see if the authors could document them...since they are likely to be best suited to document their own code. > I think there is hope in this message, but it demands something > different than the existing proclaimed desires of "Lets get an > all-volunteer effort together to build some library...". Whatever gets > done is going to need some kind of professional look and feel that won't > be accomplished by a bunch of rag-tag developers all submitting whatever > they feel like building this week. It is a big undertaking that needs > significant professionalism that I doubt is going to come from good > intentions and spare time work. > *** Well whether I'm paid for it or not, I like to produce the highest quality code even of very small personal pointless projects :-). to me (and possible others) it wouldn't represent extra effort (at least not too much more effort) to produce a minimal quality source code and documentation. > One other note: They are not seeing huge demand for some kind of big > library like what might be found in Java, etc. If the end users start > saying something along the lines of "We could use XYZ capability in a > library somewhere..." and they were lobbying for it and willing to > purchase support for it, then companies like ACT might be a little more > motivated to do something about it. > *** Like I said, the laws of Offer and Demand are powerful ones :-) see my computer shop getting toilet paper annecdote in my revious message :-). So we have 3 sides to attack if you will from. COmpiler vendors, which I've started doing. The WGs which I've also started and will shortly have more to add on that part. And the customers which well we need to interrogate a bit...how many of these ACT and Aoniz and Janus/Ada clients are reading this board? if any, speak up please, we need to hear from you guys. If not, someone tell me where they can be found? :-) > MDC > > > -- Marin D. Condic > ====================================================================== > soon I should have the feedback of another compiler vendor. Look for it :-).... -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-10-28 23:37 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-29 1:12 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-29 14:35 ` Marc A. Criley 2003-10-29 23:10 ` tmoran 2003-10-29 23:34 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marc A. Criley @ 2003-10-29 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:<3F9EFDC6.7050508@noplace.com>... > So I feel a little vindicated. Yep! > Here we have a vendor saying that they > wouldnt' want something that was just slapped together from odds and > ends collected from the Internet. They need something consistent and > well documented. In all likelihood, ACT would not be unique in this respect. The part I want to focus on is ACT's repeated insistence on good quality documentation, as Stephane reported back from his conversation with ACT. I completely understand where they're coming from, and agree with that position. What passes for documentation with many open-source/spare-time developed products is barely more than the usage notes the developer happened to write down while the code was being written. It takes a lot of work to write useful documentation, stuff that goes beyond: Flags: The flags associated with the I/O operation. It took weeks of spare time to write and edit the DTraq User Manual (http://www.mckae.com/dtq_common/DTraq.pdf), which involved repeatedly submitting updates and rework to an editor that vigorously checked it for readability, usability, accuracy, and clarity. (My wife...er...editor, is in the same line of work as I am and so has also struggled with the deficiencies of documentation, of both open source and proprietary products.) I can't begin to tell you how frustrating it is to try to use an application or tool or utility that looks and sounds really good, but then have to spend hours trying to figure out how to use it more effectively than what's given in the single accompanying 5-step example. I end up scouring the Web for tutorials, such as for Xerces, or grepping source code. Examples are nice, but examples are supposed to illustrate what the documentation is conveying, not _be_ the documentation. Without the commitment to provide (and maintain!) good documentation, the users of a product (or tool or library) will get frustrated, perhaps even to the point of discarding it because it's just too hard to figure out how to use. Obviously ACT, as a for-profit business, has no time to waste on under-documented products, and simply eliminates them from consideration on the spot. It may seem unfair and shortsighted to the developer, but ACT (and other businesses) have to worry about the costs, and trying to figure out how your product works by grepping source code is just not an efficient way to do that. Marc A. Criley mc NOSPAM @ mckae.com -- You know what to do... McKaeTechnologies "The Efficient Production of High Quality Software" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-10-29 14:35 ` Marc A. Criley @ 2003-10-29 23:10 ` tmoran 2003-10-29 23:34 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2003-10-29 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw) >I can't begin to tell you how frustrating it is to try to use an >application or tool or utility that looks and sounds really good, but >then have to spend hours trying to figure out how to use it more >effectively than what's given in the single accompanying 5-step example. Absolutely. MS Windows is a dark gray hole - lots of time goes in, and very little light comes out. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-10-29 14:35 ` Marc A. Criley 2003-10-29 23:10 ` tmoran @ 2003-10-29 23:34 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-31 14:42 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-29 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw) Yes. Yeah Verrily! And well said. A good example of library documentation is what you get with the MFC in MSVC++. O.K. we could stand here and pick on it for hours (and probably will, now that I've made the bold claim that Microsoft did something well. ;-) Compared to what you see with most other freebie stuff you get from the Internet, the MS documentation of the MFC is light-years ahead of anything else. I just downloaded a library of Ada stuff that I don't wish to criticize, so I won't name it, but upon inspection, all that was in the distro was the source code and the license. So what you get is whatever comments are in the code and whatever info you may have gleaned from the website. That's a far cry from a hyperlinked document that is integrated with the IDE for point-n-click info on any MFC class. The thing is that it is *HARD* and *TIME CONSUMING* to produce a really good document and as soon as a library moves beyond something trivial, your average volunteer enthusiast is going to lose interest in spending the necessary time to get it right. That's why I've been suggesting that to get a good, Conventional Ada Library of some sort that is used on most Ada platforms, its going to take more than just some volunteers hacking some stuff together and putting it on a web site. Even if that was just "a start" with the hope that one day, the vendors would pick it up and build on it and turn it into "The Standard", it has a whole lot of speculation and "ifs" to overcome. I don't think it would work without some committment of support and guidance from the vendors. It almost has to have some kind of "for-profit" motive built into it or its just too big an undertaking to happen on its own. MDC Marc A. Criley wrote: > > The part I want to focus on is ACT's repeated insistence on good > quality documentation, as Stephane reported back from his conversation > with ACT. I completely understand where they're coming from, and > agree with that position. What passes for documentation with many > open-source/spare-time developed products is barely more than the > usage notes the developer happened to write down while the code was > being written. > > It takes a lot of work to write useful documentation, stuff that goes > beyond: > Flags: The flags associated with the I/O operation. > > It took weeks of spare time to write and edit the DTraq User Manual > (http://www.mckae.com/dtq_common/DTraq.pdf), which involved repeatedly > submitting updates and rework to an editor that vigorously checked it > for readability, usability, accuracy, and clarity. (My > wife...er...editor, is in the same line of work as I am and so has > also struggled with the deficiencies of documentation, of both open > source and proprietary products.) > > I can't begin to tell you how frustrating it is to try to use an > application or tool or utility that looks and sounds really good, but > then have to spend hours trying to figure out how to use it more > effectively than what's given in the single accompanying 5-step > example. I end up scouring the Web for tutorials, such as for Xerces, > or grepping source code. > > Examples are nice, but examples are supposed to illustrate what the > documentation is conveying, not _be_ the documentation. > > Without the commitment to provide (and maintain!) good documentation, > the users of a product (or tool or library) will get frustrated, > perhaps even to the point of discarding it because it's just too hard > to figure out how to use. Obviously ACT, as a for-profit business, > has no time to waste on under-documented products, and simply > eliminates them from consideration on the spot. It may seem unfair > and shortsighted to the developer, but ACT (and other businesses) have > to worry about the costs, and trying to figure out how your product > works by grepping source code is just not an efficient way to do that. > > Marc A. Criley > mc NOSPAM @ mckae.com -- You know what to do... > McKaeTechnologies > "The Efficient Production of High Quality Software" -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-10-29 23:34 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-31 14:42 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-11-01 3:05 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-01 7:20 ` Simon Wright 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-31 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote: : That's why I've been suggesting that to get a good, Conventional Ada : Library of some sort that is used on most Ada platforms, its going to : take more than just some volunteers hacking some stuff together and : putting it on a web site. Even if that was just "a start" with the hope : that one day, the vendors would pick it up and build on it and turn it : into "The Standard", it has a whole lot of speculation and "ifs" to : overcome. I don't think it would work without some committment of : support and guidance from the vendors. It almost has to have some kind : of "for-profit" motive built into it or its just too big an undertaking : to happen on its own. There is extensive documentation for Charles, though (1) it is named STL elsewhere, and (2) Charles is "an Ada library", so there are differences. However, being "modelled principally on the C++ STL", there are quite some good books covering STL usage and concepts, and thus, mutatis mutandis, some Charles concepts. (Does it help knowing that STL work began with Ada and Scheme? :) And aren't there extensive reports about the Booch components? For the 83 version, you have a book covering a lot. Booch is a writer, too, isn't he, so I gather that the free Booch components aren't lightyears away from MS libraries, even where the documents aren't in the distribution, or in the source files? What do you think about the descriptions in the source files of Mats Weber's components? Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-10-31 14:42 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-11-01 3:05 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-01 3:50 ` Stephane Richard 2003-11-02 16:41 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-11-01 7:20 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-11-01 3:05 UTC (permalink / raw) > > There is extensive documentation for Charles, though (1) it is named > STL elsewhere, and (2) Charles is "an Ada library", so there are > differences. However, being "modelled principally on the C++ STL", > there are quite some good books covering STL usage and concepts, > and thus, mutatis mutandis, some Charles concepts. > There is an enormoous difference between getting a library that, when installed (with an install shield or similar - not just "unpack it and figure it out for yourself) has a built-in hyperlinked document that gives you help on any given class or method you can point at and click, versus someone saying "You can always get a good book for a library that was written in a different language and figure that our library lines up pretty close to that one." Whatever documentation is available for Charles, it isn't an integrated part of the library. There may be any number of ways for the determined user to find out what Charles does, but it isn't just standing right there saying "Here I am - let me tell you more about it..." Does the documentation even come with the distribution? Does the documentation hyperlink to the code after installation - or, more importantly, does the code hyperlink to the documentation? Really first rate documentation is a *HARD* thing to achieve and (not to criticize Charles) I have not seen any all-volunteer, freebie products out there for Ada that meet the truly professional standards one can expect from many commercial products. While ACT is free to do whatever they like, I would find it unlikely that they would glom onto Charles as-is and just start distributing it. They'd either wait until a better level of documentation were done or have to invest their own energy into doing so. In either case, I think that vendor involvement and support is much more likely to get the job done than waiting for volunteers to do it - especially when those volunteers don't see any potential reward other than the fame, glory and opportunity to meet chicks. > (Does it help knowing that STL work began with Ada and Scheme? :) > Nope. If I loved the STL so much, I'd run off and use C++. Ada having inspired the STL and Charles having copied the STL is pretty irrelevant. Its Ada saying "Me too!!!" rather than "I'm head-and-shoulders above the STL!" > And aren't there extensive reports about the Booch components? > For the 83 version, you have a book covering a lot. > Booch is a writer, too, isn't he, so I gather that the free > Booch components aren't lightyears away from MS libraries, even > where the documents aren't in the distribution, or in the source > files? > It is still light years away. In the case of MSVC++ and the MFC - I lay down some money, I run through an install shield and *BAM*! There I am with a library and hyperlinked documentation built into an IDE that is extremely thorough and complete. In the other, I download Booch. I go looking for books - which I probably have to order because it isn't at the local Barnes and Noble, I study the text for hours, I get a question about some class or method and I'm off leafing through paper, etc. In situation 1, it is very convenient, easy, direct, immediate, etc. In the other, I have to put forth all sorts of effort to get all the pieces and I have no guarantee that any of it is even connected or up to date. If you want to gain users, you must make it as EASY and PAINLESS as possible to get REALLY high quality stuff. Users are like water flowing downhill - they seek the path of least resistance. You can argue all day long "But this is just as good as.....!!!!!" and they will stay away from your product in droves if there is something easier and more complete out there. I don't have to argue the point - they're doing it for me by avoiding Ada like the plague. > What do you think about the descriptions in the source files of > Mats Weber's components? > Have not looked at it. However, I still think there is a qualitative difference between someone saying "Here's my source code and here's 20something pages of description of whats in it" and someone saying "Here's my library and help is a point-and-click away on *anything* in it." Obviously, a library with a user's manual is better than a library with nothing more than source code. Clearly a library with a user's manual that is hyperlinked to the source code is superior to just a user's manual. Ultimately, the user's manual has to be clearly written, thorough, up-to-date, etc. Its just that if you look at the *competition*, they're offering a lot more than a batch of source code and a .PDF file with some general descriptions of what's in it. You can't say "I'm *almost* that good." You have to say "I'm *superior*!" or nobody has any incentive to switch from what they've got to what you're offering. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-11-01 3:05 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-11-01 3:50 ` Stephane Richard 2003-11-01 13:20 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-02 16:41 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-11-01 3:50 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7471 bytes --] "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3FA322D8.2040003@noplace.com... > > There is an enormoous difference between getting a library that, when > installed (with an install shield or similar - not just "unpack it and > figure it out for yourself) has a built-in hyperlinked document that > gives you help on any given class or method you can point at and click, > versus someone saying "You can always get a good book for a library that > was written in a different language and figure that our library lines up > pretty close to that one." > *** the name AdaBrowse or AdaDoc come to mind here. added a more descriptive description where relevant. But wouldn't one of these two produce a good bases to a hiperlinked document? I've never seen a result of these two so I'm actually asking a question here, not being sarcastic or anything :-). > Whatever documentation is available for Charles, it isn't an integrated > part of the library. There may be any number of ways for the determined > user to find out what Charles does, but it isn't just standing right > there saying "Here I am - let me tell you more about it..." Does the > documentation even come with the distribution? Does the documentation > hyperlink to the code after installation - or, more importantly, does > the code hyperlink to the documentation? Really first rate documentation > is a *HARD* thing to achieve and (not to criticize Charles) I have not > seen any all-volunteer, freebie products out there for Ada that meet the > truly professional standards one can expect from many commercial products. > *** I think here, we need to make a difference between what ACT expects of the ARG in terms of documentation of whatever they included in an Ada Standard and the documentation they expect from a library. Charles library is good, not documented to ARG standards, but definitaly well document for a library. Although yes I have to agree they do expect a professional documentation level of the source code, I dont think they would require the same as what they would get from the ARG if they can't find what they are looking for from the ARG itself. > While ACT is free to do whatever they like, I would find it unlikely > that they would glom onto Charles as-is and just start distributing it. > They'd either wait until a better level of documentation were done or > have to invest their own energy into doing so. In either case, I think > that vendor involvement and support is much more likely to get the job > done than waiting for volunteers to do it - especially when those > volunteers don't see any potential reward other than the fame, glory and > opportunity to meet chicks. > *** Again here, the laws of Offer and Demand are at hand. if they can't do nothing else but provide Charles library because of Demand, and regular impatience of the typical customer, they might be more flexible on standards. They do want it well documented, but they dont seem to have the same vision of documentation if they have to look outside the ARG at least not as per the phone conversation. *** Now, given two libraries that perform the same functions, one is hyperlinked, the other is not, both are not available or even submitted to the ARG, I couldn't say if they wouldn't prefer the hypertexted version. If you came across two libraries that do the same thing, which would you go for? if you didn't have a choice and the only one doesn't have hyperlink documentation, would you refrain from using it? > > > > (Does it help knowing that STL work began with Ada and Scheme? :) > > > Nope. If I loved the STL so much, I'd run off and use C++. Ada having > inspired the STL and Charles having copied the STL is pretty irrelevant. > Its Ada saying "Me too!!!" rather than "I'm head-and-shoulders above the > STL!" > *** Agreeing 100% with you here. > It is still light years away. In the case of MSVC++ and the MFC - I lay > down some money, I run through an install shield and *BAM*! There I am > with a library and hyperlinked documentation built into an IDE that is > extremely thorough and complete. In the other, I download Booch. I go > looking for books - which I probably have to order because it isn't at > the local Barnes and Noble, I study the text for hours, I get a question > about some class or method and I'm off leafing through paper, etc. In > situation 1, it is very convenient, easy, direct, immediate, etc. In the > other, I have to put forth all sorts of effort to get all the pieces and > I have no guarantee that any of it is even connected or up to date. > > If you want to gain users, you must make it as EASY and PAINLESS as > possible to get REALLY high quality stuff. Users are like water flowing > downhill - they seek the path of least resistance. You can argue all day > long "But this is just as good as.....!!!!!" and they will stay away > from your product in droves if there is something easier and more > complete out there. I don't have to argue the point - they're doing it > for me by avoiding Ada like the plague. > *** In my case, I gladly switched to Ada and I didn't care about hypertexted documents...sure that's me, and I couldn't tell you I'm part of the majority or not, but I'm not the only one. However I do see your point. Would it be enough to drive away programmers? well not in my case, but I can imagine that the answer woudl have to be yes (at least to most new comers to the programming world....when I started programming (1976) hyperlinks and such didn't even appear in sci-fi movies yet...so I gladly welcomed a good book over no books at all :-). > Its just that if you look at the *competition*, they're offering a lot > more than a batch of source code and a .PDF file with some general > descriptions of what's in it. You can't say "I'm *almost* that good." > You have to say "I'm *superior*!" or nobody has any incentive to switch > from what they've got to what you're offering. > > MDC > *** Well *superior* is the key word here. for obvious questions about a library element (wether a package, a sub package, a procedure or even a constant = to 1. where do you draw the line? the MSVC++ IDE is good, let's not beat around the bush with that, it's a fact. GPS is not too far from it in some parts, and superior in others. *** but the hyperactive links to the help and all this "MS technology" tends to weave a more tangled web than we can handle. if you press SHIFT F1 on a keyword sure you get it's definition, explanation blah blah blah.....but....if you're looking for an "I wonder if it does __________ fill in the blank" kind of quesion in that web, I garantee you that in MSDN, you'll find: 1. possible answers in irrelevant programming languages such as VB 2. a multitude of sublinks to point 1. 3. Probably a detailed GPSed world map 4. The cure to the common cold (but you will continue searching and pass that golden oppurtunity right by). 5. With a little bit of luch, a couple pots of coffee, and a whole lot of tylenol extra strength, you might arrive at your answer amongst about 300 directly or indirectly (and even not related at all) other possibilities. I'm being optimistic here, there's probably a couple points I'm missing in the results. ;-) That's what I got searching for any "wonder if it does ___________ " type of questions...one of which can be located rapidly in an index. :-) -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-11-01 3:50 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-11-01 13:20 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-11-01 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephane Richard wrote: > > *** I think here, we need to make a difference between what ACT expects of I can't possibly speak for what ACT expects, but I know what *I* would expect if *I* was spending money to buy a library with which to program. I have not seen any of the all-volunteer, freebie libraries meet those expectations - although they could be made to do so. It just takes a lot of effort and resources. > > *** Again here, the laws of Offer and Demand are at hand. if they can't do > nothing else but provide Charles library because of Demand, and regular > impatience of the typical customer, they might be more flexible on > standards. They do want it well documented, but they dont seem to have the > same vision of documentation if they have to look outside the ARG at least > not as per the phone conversation. I am very hip to the concept of Supply and Demand - something too many people are uneducated about and hence they make bad decisions in most aspects of life. Obviously, if everyone who was a supported customer of ACT started calling in saying "I'd like to see Charles bundled with the GNAT compiler and I'd like to see it extended and built on as a library of lots of useful things..." then ACT would get on the job and have it there. But as we've discussed before, there isn't a consensus because "The Customer" isn't entirely sure what he wants. He wants *something* - just not sure if that's Charles of Booch or Grace or take your pick. That's why if a vendor like ACT said "Here's the compiler and here's Charles with it and here's a bunch of things we built on top of Charles...." then perhaps the customer would settle on that. Its Freedom FROM choice the customer wants. >> > > *** In my case, I gladly switched to Ada and I didn't care about hypertexted > documents...sure that's me, and I couldn't tell you I'm part of the majority > or not, but I'm not the only one. However I do see your point. Would it be > enough to drive away programmers? well not in my case, but I can imagine > that the answer woudl have to be yes (at least to most new comers to the > programming world....when I started programming (1976) hyperlinks and such > didn't even appear in sci-fi movies yet...so I gladly welcomed a good book > over no books at all :-). > I was talking to a friend at a major jet engine company that programs their controls in Ada. His best guess is that when the next major engine control comes around, it will not be in Ada but in C or C++. Does he hate Ada? No. Nor does the company that's using it - generally speaking. But when they have all sorts of work beyond simply writing up the code and there are major uncertainties about supporting targets 30 years into the future, they want something with widespread industry support. They don't see "Widespread Industry Support" surrounding Ada. What are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to say "We're so much in love with Ada that we'll go it alone and totally fund our own micro-software-industry that makes compilers, debuggers, CM tools, IDEs, training courses, etc..." There is ENORMOUS pressure on a program that has to go on for 30+ years to figure out how they're going to deal with changes in technology. If they start with something robust and widespread in use, there's a good chance it will last or there will be migration paths. If they start with something that's already gasping for breath and barely hanging on, what's the risk to the program if it totally dies? That's why I'm saying that Ada desperately needs to take some bold actions to get its installed base of users up. Lots of companies currently using Ada are in that boat of asking what technology is the "going forward" answer and Ada isn't it. Ada has to come up with something new and exciting - like a *MASSIVE* library - that is going to get lots more users out there hacking things together and lots more *profitable* businesses out there creating & supporting Ada/Ada-related products or the game is over. And it *can't* be something small, slow to emerge, and of inconsistent quality like just about anything that is going to be built by an all-volunteer, freebie project. If Ada's life depends on a handful of guys doing some spare-time hacking to produce something, then she might as well put in a call to Dr. Kevorkian and get the inevitable over with. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-11-01 3:05 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-01 3:50 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-11-02 16:41 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-11-02 19:25 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-11-02 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote: : Whatever documentation is available for Charles, it isn't an integrated : part of the library. I think it is, but you cannot see it :-) Point is, you cannot make good use of the library if you haven't understood how it works. No hypertext can help here. No short "contextfree" subprogram description, no example introducing more context than you had asked for. Worse, you can waste even more time trying to find answers for basic usage questions, as Stephane has explained. But, you rarely *need* to dive into the detailed annotation hypertext once you have understood how the (container) library works. That is because it is organised in a predictable way, around a few principles, for a well specified purpose. (Not for a massive collection of everything.) Would it make sense to try to explain the underlying fundamentals in descriptions of what is built upon the fundamentals, so to speak? Or should the fundamentals be explained elsewhere? And OTOH you don't need so much more than to know the priciples, in practice. If you look at SGI's STL headers and those of other vendors derived from them, you won't be seeing a lot of comment. And I think many of these comments would be repetitive as well as useless. Another example: One could argue that SUN's Java libraries have extensive hypertext documentation, and that Eclipse pops up relevant doc parts next to a name denoting an item from the library. That's useful if the library isn't that well organised, and you have forgotten some specifics. But still, given typical usage of the hypertext, how do people learn that there are "container classes" with methods, and "static functions" to work with containers, in a "parallel" set of classes? If they ever learn this at all. Some similar situations: How do you learn how to write a GUI using GTKAda, or NextSTEP, or ...? Hypertext describing relevant subprograms seems useless to me without prior learning, e.g. from an n-days tutorial. After that, if you know what subprogram to use, a quick lookup table is most helpful, and hypertext will guide you to parameter details etc. But no earlier than after the tutorial, and only if the library is a mess whose organisation cannot be kept in anyone's head :-) (It appears that container libraries such as Charles or Booch's need not be messy, but can be made consistent in your comprehension.) : There may be any number of ways for the determined : user to find out what Charles does, but it isn't just standing right : there saying "Here I am - let me tell you more about it..." In view of the above this expectation is maybe mislead. Once you know the principles, you can almost guess what is in the interface to some container. I think this is much more productive and fun. :> (Does it help knowing that STL work began with Ada and Scheme? :) :> : Nope. If I loved the STL so much, I'd run off and use C++. Ada having : inspired the STL and Charles having copied the STL is pretty irrelevant. : Its Ada saying "Me too!!!" rather than "I'm head-and-shoulders above the : STL!" You would have to prove how it is possible to be head-and-shoulders above the *principles* of STL. C++ or Ada is not that relevant here, I think, except that Matthew Heaney writes that Charles is an Ada library, using Ada features, not C++. : If you want to gain users, you must make it as EASY and PAINLESS as : possible to get REALLY high quality stuff. Users are like water flowing : downhill - they seek the path of least resistance. In the case of standard container library, should Ada vendors follow strategies from the MS marketing labs, in that they try to impress programmers with linked descriptions that turn out to be no more useful than Stephane has explained? Does this documentation hay stack searching trigger good software engineering in case good software engineering implies good use of a container library in the learned ways it has been designed to be used? Hypertext is just a formal aspect of text structure. It does not by itself guarantee that the links are good. Imagine an admonition link next to every occurrence of an Iterator, type Iterator is ... private; -- and again bla blah, same as Iterators everywhere, bla bla -- bla bla blah bla bla, blabla blaha. -- BUT DON'T forget to read the introductory -->[Chapter on Iterators] when understanding the introductory chapter on Iterators makes all the bla bla comments nothing but a waste of time? In an IDE, what information should be one click away, for example if it comes to Ada reserved words? One answer to this question can be found on http://www.htdp.org which goes along with an IDE. Does this say something about the kind of text accompanying a library's "standard" identifiers when the identifiers are used as starting points of links to documentation? Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-11-02 16:41 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-11-02 19:25 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-11-02 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > > I think it is, but you cannot see it :-) > Point is, you cannot make good use of the library if you haven't > understood how it works. No hypertext can help here. There's nothing wrong with an "Overview" document - or even a textbook on the guiding principles or any other huge bulk of prose anyone cares to write. Did it come with the .ZIP file? Did it install somewhere plain and obvious when installing the software? If the answer is "No" then all that documentation sitting on someone else's shelf didn't help me one little bit. And having a hyperlink from the IDE that eventually reaches the "Overview" cannot possibly hurt, can it? > No short "contextfree" subprogram description, no example > introducing more context than you had asked for. > Worse, you can waste even more time trying to find answers > for basic usage questions, as Stephane has explained. > But, you rarely *need* to dive into the detailed annotation > hypertext once you have understood how the (container) library works. Maybe so. I could probably take *any* library of *any* type with even poorly organized, inconsistent structure and, so long as it was, say, under a dozen-or-so packages or a 100_000 lines of code overall, I could probably *memorize* the whole thing. I'd never need to refer to the document at all. So what? I'm talking about having a *VERY* large library - possibly something built on top of an existing container package such as Charles. There's *no* way that someone is going to keep every detail in their head. They're going to need easily accessible, high quality documentation to do that. Standing around saying "Well if you understood the philosophy of this massive library, you wouldn't need such a thing" is probably not going to be very convincing to the uninitiate. > That is because it is organised in a predictable way, around > a few principles, for a well specified purpose. (Not for a massive > collection of everything.) > Yeah, but see above. I don't need documentation for a couple-of-dozen packages (although it would be nice) if I can read every bit of it, understand it and use it regularly. I'll end up memorizing everything I need to know. But I'm talking about something substantially larger than that. You could drop something like that in someone's lap and tell them that "Any *competent* programmer" could figure it out..." Or you could give them every possible bit of help imaginable and hope this encourages them to eventually use it. Which is more likely to be successful from a marketing standpoint? > Would it make sense to try to explain the underlying fundamentals > in descriptions of what is built upon the fundamentals, so to speak? > Or should the fundamentals be explained elsewhere? There's nothing wrong with a "Fundamentals of the Conventional Ada Library" book being written. Or even a "Conventional Ada Library for Smart People (Because The Dummies Are Using C++)" book. There can be as many books as you like. The more, the merrier. However: A) That doesn't eliminate the need for something that gets you detailed instructions on a specific package, class, subroutine, type, etc. as you're busy programming, B) Hyperlinking that documentation and getting there via the IDE is not A Bad Thing, and C) Whatever documents you have ought to come with the distro and install somewhere useful (Gnat does a pretty good job - its right there in my Start menu...) > Another example: > One could argue that SUN's Java libraries have extensive hypertext > documentation, and that Eclipse pops up relevant doc parts next to > a name denoting an item from the library. That's useful if the > library isn't that well organised, and you have forgotten some > specifics. But still, given typical usage of the hypertext, how > do people learn that there are "container classes" with methods, > and "static functions" to work with containers, in a "parallel" > set of classes? If they ever learn this at all. > I never said that a hyperlinked reference manual was all there is to documentation. I said it was an essential part of what developers these days consider "Professional" and its part of what they pay money to get. They also buy books on the subject, so that's a good idea as well. But producing all this stuff for something substantially bigger than a container library is *difficult* and *expensive* so don't expect it is going to get done properly by an all-volunteer crew. > > Some similar situations: > How do you learn how to write a GUI using GTKAda, or NextSTEP, > or ...? Hypertext describing relevant subprograms seems useless to me > without prior learning, e.g. from an n-days tutorial. After that, And the last time I looked at GtkAda, it didn't have a really good overview document sitting around in the distro either. I agree - staring at the subroutines and whatever related documentation might have been there (even if hyperlinked) is not an effective way to learn something like GtkAda. When I observed that there wasn't a good "Getting Started" or "Walk Through" example text or a really thorough manual, I'd get pointed to the underlying C/C++ product - Gtk - and told I should study some of the on-line documents for that. (And then explain to me why I want to bother using Ada if everything is there for the C++ version and Ada is always trailing behind?) Or I was told I could go struggle through the process of learning it and then I could volunteer to write a document and give it away free of charge. Guess what? I didn't labor away freely for the benefit of someone else's product. This is a real problem with the freebie sort of software. If the future of Ada depends on people laboring away for free to produce something that will somehow overtake and exceed the capabilities we see with languages that have commercial backing, then Ada is in sad shape. Real-world developers with real-world problems to solve can't wait around for "One Day, Its Going To Be Great - Just You Wait And See...." They need something *NOW* that satisfies all those needs they find fulfilled in commercially backed products with lots of industry support. > if you know what subprogram to use, a quick lookup table is most > helpful, and hypertext will guide you to parameter details etc. > But no earlier than after the tutorial, and only if the library > is a mess whose organisation cannot be kept in anyone's head :-) > (It appears that container libraries such as Charles or Booch's > need not be messy, but can be made consistent in your comprehension.) > Again - something relatively small like a container library can survive without much documentation. Something relatively large - like the MFC, for example - needs something a *LOT* better. If Charles or Booch expect to grow into a bigger creature good quality documentation is a must. > > You would have to prove how it is possible to be head-and-shoulders > above the *principles* of STL. C++ or Ada is not that relevant here, > I think, except that Matthew Heaney writes that Charles is an > Ada library, using Ada features, not C++. > I don't know how something is going to be made head-and-shoulders above the principles of the STL. What I *do* know, is that if you don't do something *better* than the STL in *some* respect, nobody has much incentive to move from a major, world-wide, accepted, dominant, huge-market-share language like C++ to an obscure, withering, niche-market language like Ada. I like Ada, but by any realistic assessment of the marketplace, it has only a small share and that has major disadvantages when someone is confronting the choice of selecting a language for their project. You'd better offer them something *WAY-MORE* than what they get elsewhere if you hope to win them over. > > In the case of standard container library, > should Ada vendors follow strategies from the MS marketing labs, > in that they try to impress programmers with linked descriptions > that turn out to be no more useful than Stephane has > explained? Only if they hope to win market share. All the intellectual arguments that say "Microsoft documentation sucks" can be right and true and good and noble - and completely ignored by the marketplace. Do you want to be right? Or do you want to win? What I can say about Microsoft is this: They may not be perfect, but with some of the things they have supplied WRT programming languages in terms of well-integrated tools and documentation - I have yet to see it equaled by anything for Ada. GPS is really nice and a step in the right direction. However, it *DID* learn a lot about what an IDE should look like from MSVC++ - so give credit where it is due. In many respects GPS *EXCEEDS* what I have seen in MSVC++ and does things *better* than MSVC++. But it still isn't as fully featured, is it? Hence, it has to keep slogging away trying to get better and better so that it can offer the developer something he can't get with MSVC++ and create an incentive to switch. A really large library with integrated documentation, etc., would be a good move in that direction. Does this documentation hay stack searching trigger good software > engineering in case good software engineering implies good use of > a container library in the learned ways it has been designed to be > used? Does it matter? The *goal* ought to be to figure out what it is that programmers want to buy and give them what they want - or they're going somewhere else to get it. Hell. They already have! Do you want to get them back? Or get them for the first time? You've got to give them something they want or they will continue to stay away by the millions. > Hypertext is just a formal aspect of text structure. It does not by itself > guarantee that the links are good. Imagine an admonition link next > to every occurrence of an Iterator, > Never said that simply because it is hyperlinked it is ipso facto "Good". What I *said* was good documentation is difficult and time consuming to get right, that all-volunteer projects tend to lack much in the way of good documentation, that MSVC++ provided some really useful stuff in the way of documentation and that MSVC++ had this useful stuff hyperlinked via their IDE - and I found that to be useful and cool. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-10-31 14:42 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-11-01 3:05 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-11-01 7:20 ` Simon Wright 2003-11-02 17:04 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2003-11-01 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes: > And aren't there extensive reports about the Booch components? > For the 83 version, you have a book covering a lot. This is true. Not sure if it's in print .. I could check but of the top of my head I think it was more about the internals than usage. > Booch is a writer, too, isn't he, so I gather that the free > Booch components aren't lightyears away from MS libraries, even > where the documents aren't in the distribution, or in the source > files? I don't know the MS libraries but I would be amazed if the BCs bore anything more than a passing resemblance. Of course no one wants documentation, they want "Learn to use the BCs in 24 hours" or some such. -- Simon Wright 100% Ada, no bugs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) 2003-11-01 7:20 ` Simon Wright @ 2003-11-02 17:04 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-11-02 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote: : Of course no one wants documentation, they want "Learn to use the BCs : in 24 hours" or some such. Or "in one mouse click" :-) S Marin, CNR, of course there is more to mouse clicks. Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player IRVINE) 2003-10-28 16:21 ` Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) Stephane Richard 2003-10-28 23:37 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-11-02 15:09 ` Stephane Richard 2003-11-02 16:18 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-11-02 22:41 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-11-02 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3288 bytes --] Irvine Ada Compiler's reply to my questionnaire. (a different perspective to say the least). > > 1. How open are they to the idea of the library as it seems to be directing > itself so far? I am very open to the idea of a registry/catalog of existing components. I think this will quickly lead to improvement of the components by their own authors, as errors and non-portabilities are highlighted, and it will quickly lead to improvements in the compilers as compiler errors are highlighted. This will correct one of the main current deficiencies, in that existing components are unlikely to work on any compiler other than the one they were developed with. If the registry/catalog is actively maintained (more so than Adapower) and publicized (more so than AdaIC or Sigada), it will attract volunteers to develop new components, and volunteers to point out the existence of missing components, and volunteer reviewers to identify which compilers work (or don't) on which components. Users would be much more willing to hunt for reusable components in such a catalog, than in the existing unmaintained link farms. This would be true, regardless of whether any of the components were ever standardized by the ARG, or distributed by compiler vendors, or somehow made to use a consistent coding style. > 2. Did you, as a compiler vendor conduct any surveys or research, amongst > your clients to see what they could possibly want in a library? No. Customers don't look to compiler vendors for such things. They would rather the compiler was less expensive than that it comes with extra goodies not required by the RM, for which they can either write their own or find in a free library. > 3. What would you, as compiler vendors, like to see in the > library/registry/catalog? As in something you might know you've never seen > before that is crucially missing from Ada as it stands right now. I'd like to see all the existing Ada software cataloged in one place. Volunteers will quickly fill in the gaps once the scope is clear. > 4. What about more elaborate libraries that are missing when comparing Ada > to such languages as C++, Delphi and the likes? By this I mean to ask what, > according to you, is potentially missing from Ada that comes with the other > "popular" languages, what do you think would help Ada's popularity, so to > speak? I think the library would naturally evolve to be more elaborate, without any central planning, or any involvement of the ARG or compiler vendors. > 5. What about even more sophisticated things. things that could entice > other domains industries to be interested by Ada and bring new customers and > customer types? Reliable, inexpensive compilers is what brings in new customers, particularly if the capabilities of such compilers are plain to see on a highly visible web site. I am also awaiting replies from: - Aonix who have agreed to participate in this survey, I'm just waiting for the answers to this question). - Rational Ada (who have received my questions and I'm waiting for a reply. - Green Hills (same as Rational, awaiting the reply to the questions. I'll be posting them as I get them :-). So keep on readin. There's more to come. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player IRVINE) 2003-11-02 15:09 ` Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player IRVINE) Stephane Richard @ 2003-11-02 16:18 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-11-02 16:35 ` Stephane Richard 2003-11-02 22:41 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2003-11-02 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 15:09, Stephane Richard wrote: > Irvine Ada Compiler's reply to my questionnaire. (a different perspective to > say the least).... > I am also awaiting replies from:.... Stephane more power to you on these enquiries but frankly I fail to see what they contribute to the CAL. They are just opinions. And rather predictable at that: you would not really expect any of them to be against, or "not open", to the idea, would you? You don't ask the principal question, namely about their willingness to invest real resources on the project. Or about who they think would do so. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player IRVINE) 2003-11-02 16:18 ` Marius Amado Alves @ 2003-11-02 16:35 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-11-02 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1652 bytes --] Well some people here in the group seem to think a certain commercial involvement will eventually need to be part of the CAL initiative (hey I like that name :-) in order to acheive commercial quality library (in a reasonable sense of the word. and those individuals were wondering about the interest of compiler vendors (and others) in such a project and potential involvement of these participants into the finalization of the library. As well, some members also wanted some insight on the part of compiler vendors as to what their point of view was to determine what should be part of the library itself as per research or plain customer requests. This is what I'm attempting to answer with these inquiries to set that side at ease, settle it so to speak so that we can move on to the next phase of the CAL initiative :-). -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com "Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote in message news:mailman.253.1067789954.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org... > On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 15:09, Stephane Richard wrote: > > Irvine Ada Compiler's reply to my questionnaire. (a different perspective to > > say the least).... > > I am also awaiting replies from:.... > > Stephane more power to you on these enquiries but frankly I fail to see > what they contribute to the CAL. They are just opinions. And rather > predictable at that: you would not really expect any of them to be > against, or "not open", to the idea, would you? You don't ask the > principal question, namely about their willingness to invest real > resources on the project. Or about who they think would do so. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player IRVINE) 2003-11-02 15:09 ` Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player IRVINE) Stephane Richard 2003-11-02 16:18 ` Marius Amado Alves @ 2003-11-02 22:41 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-03 1:07 ` Standard Library Interest? Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-11-02 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw) O.K. So with respect to distributing a Conventional Ada Library along with compilers, this is what I'm hearing: ACT: "Well, *maybe* if it came from a SIGAda group and it was really good quality and lots of users already wanted it, we *might* go out and distribute it...." Irvine: "No." Perhaps some other vendors may come out with a different answer, but it isn't looking like they want to start jumping on the bandwagon, does it? It wouldn't much matter *how* it got built (all-volunteer or some mix of funding, from some TBD sources, etc.) The interest level from the vendors is asymptotically approaching zero as far as I can tell. So maybe a library is a bad idea. (I don't think so) If so, then I hope the vendors or ARG can come up with some *other* idea that is going to generate some new interest in Ada. Why is it I can hear Danny DiVito in the background reciting his speech from "Other People's Money": "I'm sure at one time there must have been hundreds of companies out there making buggy whips...." (Substitute "Ada Compilers" for "Buggy Whips" ;-) MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > Irvine Ada Compiler's reply to my questionnaire. (a different perspective to > say the least). > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-02 22:41 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-11-03 1:07 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-03 1:27 ` Stephane Richard ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-11-03 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Perhaps some other vendors may come out with a different answer, but it > isn't looking like they want to start jumping on the bandwagon, does it? > It wouldn't much matter *how* it got built (all-volunteer or some mix of > funding, from some TBD sources, etc.) The interest level from the > vendors is asymptotically approaching zero as far as I can tell. > So maybe a library is a bad idea. (I don't think so) If so, then I hope > the vendors or ARG can come up with some *other* idea that is going to > generate some new interest in Ada. Why is it I can hear Danny DiVito in > the background reciting his speech from "Other People's Money": "I'm > sure at one time there must have been hundreds of companies out there > making buggy whips...." (Substitute "Ada Compilers" for "Buggy Whips" ;-) I think that in one sense asking the Ada compiler vendors is necessary. But in another it is irrelevant. If we know what users want and provide it, the compiler vendors will be asked by THEIR customers to provide and support it. If the end users don't want it, won't use it, or can't use it, then this whole effort is a waste of time. Of course, to some extent compiler vendors are Ada programmers/users, and they are in touch with their customers and their needs. Some years ago, I worked out the right solution--form an Ada software engineering guild, or for that matter a software engineer's guild, and one of the functions of the guild would be to provide and support a library that could be used by its members. (Including corporate members.) If you could get the system to insist on only using guild licensed programmers in the correct disciplines, and guild software engineers on certain types of projects this would finally give software engineering a realistic model to work with. Anyone who really is a software engineer not a glorified programmer, knows that the only way software engineering is taught is not in school but by mentoring. And most corporations don't have a mechanism for recognizing mentoring effort, and people who have in effect graduated from apprentice to journeyman, or from journeyman to master. But all that is way beyond what we can accomplish here. But I do feel that doing the registry right will give us both a better idea of what exists and a way to track what is used or wanted. Finally, note that once we do get a group well organized to create a common Ada library that will be used, we can survey both c.l.a and SIGAda to find out what people think they want--and what they currently use or have used, etc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 1:07 ` Standard Library Interest? Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-11-03 1:27 ` Stephane Richard 2003-11-03 12:52 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-03 3:58 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-03 12:36 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-11-03 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6053 bytes --] "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:PomdnQFWG_DaNziiRVn-hQ@comcast.com... > > > Marin David Condic wrote: > > > Perhaps some other vendors may come out with a different answer, but it > > isn't looking like they want to start jumping on the bandwagon, does it? > > It wouldn't much matter *how* it got built (all-volunteer or some mix of > > funding, from some TBD sources, etc.) The interest level from the > > vendors is asymptotically approaching zero as far as I can tell. > > > So maybe a library is a bad idea. (I don't think so) If so, then I hope > > the vendors or ARG can come up with some *other* idea that is going to > > generate some new interest in Ada. Why is it I can hear Danny DiVito in > > the background reciting his speech from "Other People's Money": "I'm > > sure at one time there must have been hundreds of companies out there > > making buggy whips...." (Substitute "Ada Compilers" for "Buggy Whips" ;-) > > I think that in one sense asking the Ada compiler vendors is necessary. > But in another it is irrelevant. If we know what users want and > provide it, the compiler vendors will be asked by THEIR customers to > provide and support it. If the end users don't want it, won't use it, > or can't use it, then this whole effort is a waste of time. > > Of course, to some extent compiler vendors are Ada programmers/users, > and they are in touch with their customers and their needs. > > Some years ago, I worked out the right solution--form an Ada software > engineering guild, or for that matter a software engineer's guild, and > one of the functions of the guild would be to provide and support a > library that could be used by its members. (Including corporate > members.) If you could get the system to insist on only using guild > licensed programmers in the correct disciplines, and guild software > engineers on certain types of projects this would finally give software > engineering a realistic model to work with. > > Anyone who really is a software engineer not a glorified programmer, > knows that the only way software engineering is taught is not in school > but by mentoring. And most corporations don't have a mechanism for > recognizing mentoring effort, and people who have in effect graduated > from apprentice to journeyman, or from journeyman to master. > > But all that is way beyond what we can accomplish here. But I do feel > that doing the registry right will give us both a better idea of what > exists and a way to track what is used or wanted. > > Finally, note that once we do get a group well organized to create a > common Ada library that will be used, we can survey both c.l.a and > SIGAda to find out what people think they want--and what they currently > use or have used, etc. > Seems I've failed at my goal here :-). I wanted to cover the vendors side not only as far as "investments" but also as far as possibility to incude our effort in they distros, and attempt to get insight on what they want and what they think their clients want. I have to agree with IRVINE that customers aren't really looking at compiler vendors to bring them our project, however I agree with you that should this first part, the registry, be done and done right (which I must say is well under way from what I'm seing in your XML and your frame of mind :-). it will give is that information that us and everyone else (vendors alike, SIG Ada and the others too) a good representation of today's Ada reality as far as what's there, where is it, and most preciously and ultimately what's left to be done. so I'm definitally all for this initial phase. But I've failed at my side so far because the reason I did this survey was mainly 1. to know possible answers to the every repeating questions I've asked the vendors maybe try to at least get a hint as to what we should do next....so far, to me, the registry is the only "logical" next step for both not reproducing the code, and knowing exactly what to attack next code wise. 2. I've also contacted compiler vendors for the purpose of settling issues as in those of us who had beliefs of vendors participating financially or with a good time effort or any other way, see if it could happen and when in the process of our project it could happen..from what I'm seeing so far, only at the end or at least at the end of the registry phase. But I wanted those that were aslking questions to get their answers :-). Not raise new doubts...I got 3 vendors on the wait for their replies we'll have to see what their answers are (should there even be an answer. Aoniz agreed to answer the survey but I've not yet gotten anything. The oither two well just waiting...they've been contacted :-). As er the survey, once the registry is done, like Robert suggests, we'll be better equited to: 1. Evaluate the work left to be done to amass to a presentable solution. 2. See exactly what in there can be "reasonably" done as per a voluntary effort. 3. What (if any) can't possible be done by a voluntary effort. 4. See what parts of the registry need to be filled up that could potentially attract different types of customers and new customers of the same existing types too 5. Compare what's out there with what's out there for other languages and maybe attack these areas (which? not sure yet but I'm still thinking what the other languages offer that Ada does not in terms of libraries. 6. See in the existing code, if there's any dependencies that shoudl be replaced with non dependant code (should there be a possible non dependant alternative). A couple more pieces of information will arise from this registry too that I'm not thinking of right now but did recently ;-).... With these, the rest will fall into place as far as work to be done, quality of documentation required (perhaps by consulting WG's that do documentation of the standard, perhaps they have tips and tricks to greatly minimize our effort at good documentation. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 1:27 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-11-03 12:52 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-11-03 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Its not a failure to discover that the vendors have little to no interest in distributing a library. Not for us, at least. (I think its a failure for them - they'd better do *something* to make their products more attractive & interesting to the general computing world or they'd better start developing C++ or Java front-ends for their next generation products. Ooops! Some of them already *have*! ;-) What it means is that we've saved all sorts of effort charging off building a library only to discover that the vendors had little to no interest in distributing it. The next logical question would be "Is there enough interest in the general Ada community in a library built on something out there or all-new that provided something bigger than your basic container library?" There's no point in persuing it if nobody wants anything more than containers and they're happy to use whatever flavor of freebie download they like best. If the vendors don't want a CAL and the ARG doesn't want a CAL then there isn't much likelihood that a CAL is going to come about. The best you could hope for would be to find a way of funding the development of some library and market it as aggressively as you could with the hope that *most* users eventually got with it. Maybe ten years from now, the vendors or the ARG would get on board with it. If Ada has any users out there in another ten years. :-( MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > > Seems I've failed at my goal here :-). I wanted to cover the vendors side > not only as far as "investments" but also as far as possibility to incude > our effort in they distros, and attempt to get insight on what they want and > what they think their clients want. I have to agree with IRVINE that -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 1:07 ` Standard Library Interest? Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-03 1:27 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-11-03 3:58 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-03 6:28 ` Robert I. Eachus ` (2 more replies) 2003-11-03 12:36 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-11-03 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Robert I. Eachus > Some years ago, I worked out the right solution--form an Ada software > engineering guild, or for that matter a software engineer's guild, and > one of the functions of the guild would be to provide and support a > library that could be used by its members. (Including corporate > members.) If you could get the system to insist on only using guild > licensed programmers in the correct disciplines, and guild software > engineers on certain types of projects this would finally give software > engineering a realistic model to work with. I wonder, why those past model and past term? It is simply inadequate to many current realities (first of all, numbers matter - you can't simply scale the guild model). Why not propose a suitable curriculum instead? Include enough engineering disciplines you think important, and you certainly will deter those who aren't oriented towards engineering. In fact, the main difference between a curriculum and guild is that a curriculum is explicit and public, while guild principles, customs and directions are implicit and concealed. > Anyone who really is a software engineer not a glorified programmer, > knows that the only way software engineering is taught is not in school > but by mentoring. I wonder, why do you think that mentoring is more important in software engineering than in all classical sciences? Or in professions like doctors and lawyers? There is enough complexity, and safety requirements are often high enough. And no one of them is organized in guilds now. Even those "social" sciences that until recently traditionally have competing "schools" (which somehow resemble guilds) are gradually leaving that way. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 3:58 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-11-03 6:28 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-03 12:11 ` Jeff C, 2003-11-04 18:07 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-03 7:54 ` Mark A. Biggar 2003-11-03 15:14 ` Robert Spooner 2 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-11-03 6:28 UTC (permalink / raw) Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: > I wonder, why do you think that mentoring is more important in software > engineering than in all classical sciences? Or in professions like doctors and > lawyers? There is enough complexity, and safety requirements are often high > enough. And no one of them is organized in guilds now. Even those "social" > sciences that until recently traditionally have competing "schools" (which > somehow resemble guilds) are gradually leaving that way. I've seen and participated in attempts to teach software engineering as an academic discipline. It doesn't work as such. In practice there are several universities in this area that have good work-study programs, and when a lucky student does get a good mentor, it works well. But as far as degrees and curricula are concerned they have little to do with a student's success or failure in the co-op part of the program. I've walked both sides of the fence, both teaching at the graduate level, and mentoring co-op students in undergrad or graduate programs. (I guess the third side is that my daughter is doing just that at the University of London.) I know how to teach Computer Science in a classroom setting. I have no idea how to teach Software Engineering other than to put someone neck deep in the middle, then help them to see how to deal with the "Fog of War" or whatever. Most bright students with a decent mentor/adivsor "get it," and from then on learn software engineering is just learning new areas of application. But everyone here has had to deal with the students who come out of a CompSci program without that experience. They have been dealing with toy problems, and programs, for so long that you will never break them of their anti-software engineering habits. I could probably sit here and reel off a list of the differences between a software engineer and a hot-shot programmer, but why bother? Show the list to one of the hot-shot programmers, and they will tell you why their way is right, better, or okay since they are "good enough" to get away with it. The software engineer will say, uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, oops! you forgot one. Nope, here it is... In the early days of Ada we used to call that list the "-ilities": Readability, Maintainability, Relability, Availability, Portability, Reuseability, Verifyability, etc. The software engineer knows that designing from the beginning with the "-ilities" makes difficult jobs easy, and impossible jobs possible. The hot-shot programmer will think about adding those things later, "If he has to." Sorry, you touched a hot button. As I say, I know how to create good software engineers. I don't know how to do it in general in a university environment. (You can mentor a research assistant, but that is really a variation on an industrial setting.) I have seen several well-funded and supported attempts to do it fail. (For example, the Wang Institute.) -- Robert I. Eachus 100% Ada, no bugs--the only way to create software. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 6:28 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-11-03 12:11 ` Jeff C, 2003-11-03 17:07 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-04 18:07 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Jeff C, @ 2003-11-03 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw) "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:EOqdnSsRiKMNaDiiRVn-iQ@comcast.com... > Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: > I've seen and participated in attempts to teach software engineering as > an academic discipline. It doesn't work as such. In practice there are > several universities in this area that have good work-study programs, > and when a lucky student does get a good mentor, it works well. But as > far as degrees and curricula are concerned they have little to do with a > student's success or failure in the co-op part of the program. > It has been 11+ years since I was in college but I would say that for the most part the program I was in really did try to work toward the goal of creating software engineers and not just "programmers" or "CS Majors". In general, a program that compiled and executed correctly was only enough to get you something like a C (the grade, not the language :). The rest was based on the structure of the program. The professor would mark up the code (somewhat like a peer inspection) and also gave you and audio tape from the session where he would comment about all aspects of the code as he read it. It was VERY useful. Between the in-class examples and this accelerated trial by fire (which at the time burned out about 1/2 to 1/3 of the majors). In the higher level classes, students got to write their own requirements documents for the large complicated projects and were then evaluated at how well they met those requirements. So, I think it can be done......Granted there will still be aspects that can not be (or at least were not) taught well but I think it is possible to do a decent job at this. Oh yeah.....Until the professor that seemed to be pushing all of this stuff left the school, Ada was the pimary language. I imagine by now things have degenerated into the standard CS assignments.. "A bank wants you to build a database using a B-tree.." or the 21st century version: "A major coorporation wants you to write custom security patches for their ASP based webserver" - Cha- ching..Perpetual job security. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 12:11 ` Jeff C, @ 2003-11-03 17:07 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-11-03 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) Jeff C, wrote: > The professor would mark up the code (somewhat like a peer > inspection) and also > gave you and audio tape from the session where he would comment about all > aspects of the code as > he read it. It was VERY useful. Between the in-class examples and this > accelerated trial by fire (which > at the time burned out about 1/2 to 1/3 of the majors). > So, I think it can be done......Granted there will still be aspects that can > not be (or at least were not) taught well but > I think it is possible to do a decent job at this. First, sounds like at least one professor was trying to do mentoring for fairly large classes. But second, your 1/3 to 1/2 of the majors "burned out" is exactly the inefficiency I am complaining about. A process that wastes two or three years of both student and professor time is no paragon of efficiency. When I have done mentoring, it took about a day to figure out whether a particular mentoree was suited for the task. (In a couple of cases incidently, I was able to pass the person off to someone who was an expert in another domain that more suited the co-op's personality. In one case, it was to a DBMS project, in the other from a compiler front-end/language theory/parsing project to a code-generation/pattern matching project. > Oh yeah.....Until the professor that seemed to be pushing all of this stuff > left the school, Ada was the pimary language. > I imagine by now things have degenerated into the standard CS assignments.. > > "A bank wants you to build a database using a B-tree.." > > or the 21st century version: > > "A major coorporation wants you to write custom security patches for their > ASP based webserver" - Cha- ching..Perpetual job security. The fate, as far as I can tell of all decent university software programs. Don't get me wrong, the collegiate environment is fine for turning out programmers. But "fresh outs" with no software engineering mentoring are potential apprentices, not journeymen software engineers. The qualification is because I have had excellent experience both with hiring students who when through a co-op program, and with mentoring co-op students. In fact, I would often choose a WPI co-op student over a current employee for a job that required software engineering, not programming. (More of my involvement required at first, but usually a much better result.) -- Robert I. Eachus 100% Ada, no bugs--the only way to create software. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 6:28 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-03 12:11 ` Jeff C, @ 2003-11-04 18:07 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-11-04 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Robert I. Eachus wrote: > I've seen and participated in attempts to teach software engineering as > an academic discipline. It doesn't work as such. I know it perfectly well that it doesn't work, and that it can't work, and why it can't work. But when I mentioned curriculum I didn't mean passing software engineering education to formal academic sphere, leaving them without mentoring about practical issues and practical circumstances. Proper curriculum is needed for most mentors, not for students. For students it is useful as a deterrent only - for those who is not oriented towards engineering. But for many potential mentors such a curriculum is needed as commonly agreed general guide, framework (susbstitute better word, if you know it). Note, that you need many mentors, not just several dozens, and that many good engineers and potentially good mentors do not possess so universal experience that you probably have. They have good experience in some areas, and some general outlook on others, but they can't cover all needed areas with their own experience, and therefore they can't judge what should be taught anyway, and what may be skipped without too significant loss. You said: the guild will guide them; and I protested: not a guild, but an explicit and public curriculum. This is all the difference between our approaches to the problem. > I could probably sit here and reel off a list of the differences between > a software engineer and a hot-shot programmer, but why bother? Show the > list to one of the hot-shot programmers, and they will tell you why > their way is right, better, or okay since they are "good enough" to get > away with it. The software engineer will say, uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, > oops! you forgot one. Nope, here it is... > > .... > > Sorry, you touched a hot button. Well, I understand this perfectly, but you have touched my hot button, which sits quite near to yours, just on other side of the panel -;) . I believe that for all differences between programmers and software engineers they have some very important things in common, they should have some common ground. It is certainly true that responsibilities of software engineer generally are much better defined than those of programmers, but this does not mean that programmers are and should be generally less responsible for their production. And the concentrated and well-defined responsibilities of software engineers is one of main sources for understanding the notion of programmer's responsibility. Also, some acquaintance with problems that naturally belong to software engineering rather than to programming, significantly contribute to programmer's grasp of their problems. So, I see attempts to separate software engineers from programmers by some high and hard barriers as disastrous for both sides - if these attemps succeed then programmers will become less responsible and less competemt, while software engineers will, perhaps, become less creative, less competent and more conservative, which is not so good in such rapidly changing area, which have so little own history. Finally, note, that Ada language itself is a fine example, representing a part of that common ground for software engineers and programmers. I don't think that such a thing is possible with hard barriers between those trades. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 3:58 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-03 6:28 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-11-03 7:54 ` Mark A. Biggar 2003-11-03 21:02 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-03 15:14 ` Robert Spooner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Mark A. Biggar @ 2003-11-03 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: > I wonder, why do you think that mentoring is more important in software > engineering than in all classical sciences? Or in professions like doctors and > lawyers? There is enough complexity, and safety requirements are often high > enough. And no one of them is organized in guilds now. Even those "social" > sciences that until recently traditionally have competing "schools" (which > somehow resemble guilds) are gradually leaving that way. But the other professions DO use a guild system. Just because they aren't called apprentices and journeymen any more (they're called med-students and residents or law-students and associates instead) doesn't mean those professions don't work that way. Don't let the fact they call themselves the AMA and the BAR and don't use the word guild anymore fool you, and notice that they control entry into membership just as fanatically as any medieval guild ever did. Yes, most good software engineers learned most of what they know from a few good mentors (and I bless those that mentored me) and it would be nice if it were a little more formal. -- mark@biggar.org mark.a.biggar@comcast.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 7:54 ` Mark A. Biggar @ 2003-11-03 21:02 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-04 1:50 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-11-03 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Mark A. Biggar wrote: > > I wonder, why do you think that mentoring is more important in software > > engineering than in all classical sciences? Or in professions like doctors and > > lawyers? There is enough complexity, and safety requirements are often high > > enough. And no one of them is organized in guilds now. Even those "social" > > sciences that until recently traditionally have competing "schools" (which > > somehow resemble guilds) are gradually leaving that way. > > But the other professions DO use a guild system. Just because they > aren't called apprentices and journeymen any more (they're called > med-students and residents or law-students and associates instead) > doesn't mean those professions don't work that way. Don't let the fact > they call themselves the AMA and the BAR and don't use the word guild > anymore fool you, and notice that they control entry into membership > just as fanatically as any medieval guild ever did. Well, they have various associations, which sometimes may be seen as direct heirs of old guilds in some respects, but nevertheless they aren't guilds, they are just professional associations. There are big differences between an old-fashioned guild and today's professional association: the former is compact, homogeneous and execute tight control over activities of its ordinary members, while the latter is often highly distributed, often heterogeneous, and as a rule, controls own members loosely only. Actually, an appropriate kind of organization depends not on general qualification and skills, but on *role*. A guild of advocates may be quite appropriate, while a guild of judges is very doubtful, and a guild of prosecutors is absurd. And general qualification for all them is the same - they all are lawyers. Likewise, for software engineers I can accept a guild of testers (I mean real testers for completed complex projects, and not ordinary QA staff), but at the same time I believe that a guild of software engineers - system designers - is entirely inappropriate. > Yes, most good software engineers learned most of what they know from a > few good mentors (and I bless those that mentored me) and it would be > nice if it were a little more formal. I think I pointed at the same direction when I said about curriculum. And a guild of software engineers seems to be a move in opposite direction. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 21:02 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-11-04 1:50 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-04 18:16 ` Jeffrey Carter 2003-11-06 2:07 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-11-04 1:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: >>Yes, most good software engineers learned most of what they know from a >>few good mentors (and I bless those that mentored me) and it would be >>nice if it were a little more formal. > > > I think I pointed at the same direction when I said about curriculum. > And a guild of software engineers seems to be a move in opposite direction. I obviously disagree. If you have a guild, and in this country, the AMA for physicians is exactly that, it has a great deal of power. But the philosophy and organization of a guild determines what that power is, and how it is used. IMHO, a guild of software engineers would be like trying to herd cats if you tried to say, mandate a particular programming language. But if the guild used its power to insist that safety critical software be certified as trustworthy by a guild journeyman or master, I think that no real software engineer would have a problem with that. Right now professional engineers sign off on blueprints for large construction projects the same way. We can argue fine lines about whether a guild is a better professional approach for software engineering or not. I think it is. I think that for programmers, the engineering model of educational programs and a professional society might be better when programming becomes a profession. But for programmers, that is nowhere near to happening. As for software engineering, in one sense a professional organization is overdue. But efforts to base such a professional organization on academic credentials have failed when tried. I think a guild would work. More important, I would think that journeymen would have a "journey work" that was free software--in other words, open to inspection by anyone--and a master work would be done the same way. That way, I doubt that there would be any questions about whether or not someone really was a journeyman or master. If you have doubts, look at the work posted on his website. (Yes, someone could do work that was masterwork quality, but was classified or company proprietary. Not a problem. If they want to be a recognized journeyman or master, they would have to post other work to be judged.) -- Robert I. Eachus 100% Ada, no bugs--the only way to create software. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-04 1:50 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-11-04 18:16 ` Jeffrey Carter 2003-11-06 2:07 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2003-11-04 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus wrote: > But if the guild used its power to insist that safety critical software > be certified as trustworthy by a guild journeyman or master, I think > that no real software engineer would have a problem with that. Right now > professional engineers sign off on blueprints for large construction > projects the same way. Signing off on blueprints is equivalent to certifying the design, not the software. Presumably there are one or more later steps in a large construction project to assure that the blueprints are being implemented properly, and a safety critical SW project would similarly assure that a certified design is implemented properly. -- Jeff Carter "C's solution to this [variable-sized arrays] has real problems, and people who are complaining about safety definitely have a point." Dennis Ritchie 25 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-04 1:50 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-04 18:16 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2003-11-06 2:07 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-11-06 2:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Robert I. Eachus wrote: > If you have a guild, and in this country, the AMA > for physicians is exactly that, it has a great deal of power. I'm not sure that it is true for any guild. Physicians always and everywhere in history enjoyed a significant power (for obvious reasons), so for them a guild is just a particular way to organize that power, not to acquire it. The same is true for lawyers. And this is not true for software engineers so far, > But the > philosophy and organization of a guild determines what that power is, > and how it is used. Certainly. But where is that philosophy? - is it formulated and presented in books, or it is just in minds, perhaps being incomplete and/or inconsistent, and with unknown number of significant disagreements between different authorities? Is *software* engineering mature enough to be a subject of consistent philosophy - not for an indvidual or a small group, but for a guild consisting of many thousands? Both physicians and lawyers have history of thousands years - they had enough time, they went through enormous amount of errors, they had great philosophers among them. You may say that engineers have all that also - well, perhaps (although I can't remember philosophers of comparable rank among engineers), but not *software* engineers. Do you think that this attribute - "software" isn't too significant? One little example of a question of that philosophical kind: what is the general purpose of software engineering - to build (parts of) useful material things in a form of software, or it is to build software in engineering way, giving it all good characteristics of a properly engineered thing? (I suspect that at least one man, quite famous in Ada world, can't be considered as software engineer if we use the first definition, but he certainly is a software engineer if we accept the second one). > We can argue fine lines about whether a guild is a better professional > approach for software engineering or not. I think it is. Being an outsider for software engineering world, I can't see all aspects and can't weight them. I see probable harm, but perhaps I underestimate possible advantages (or can't see them, being an outsider). Possibly you are right... I just wonder, why the corresponding division of IEEE failed to move in this direction, if it is so attractive. > I think that > for programmers, the engineering model of educational programs and a > professional society might be better when programming becomes a > profession. But for programmers, that is nowhere near to happening. Thanks God. Programming surely *is* a profession - there are (and always been) many professions, where most of workforce is temporary or "guest", that is, people aren't locked with this profession for life, And programmers do not need more influence of engineering approach that they already have... current level of that influence is just fine. More will be worse, and less will be worse. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 3:58 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-03 6:28 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-03 7:54 ` Mark A. Biggar @ 2003-11-03 15:14 ` Robert Spooner 2003-11-03 15:38 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2003-11-03 16:52 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert Spooner @ 2003-11-03 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: > ... > I wonder, why do you think that mentoring is more important in software > engineering than in all classical sciences? Or in professions like doctors and > lawyers? > Actually, I think that if you look at how things are handled in this country in the sciences and medicine, you will find a lot of mentoring. Physicians serve internships and residencies after graduation from medical school. Graduate students in the sciences are typically mentored by their advisors - sometimes well, sometimes not. They often have to take postdoctoral fellowships as well before obtaining a permanent position. In the life sciences in particular, it can take years. Bob -- Robert L. Spooner Registered Professional Engineer Associate Research Engineer Intelligent Control Systems Department Applied Research Laboratory Phone: (814) 863-4120 The Pennsylvania State University FAX: (814) 863-7841 P. O. Box 30 State College, PA 16804-0030 rls19@psu.edu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 15:14 ` Robert Spooner @ 2003-11-03 15:38 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2003-11-03 16:52 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2003-11-03 15:38 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:14:08 -0500, Robert Spooner <rls19@psu.edu> wrote: >Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: >> ... >> I wonder, why do you think that mentoring is more important in software >> engineering than in all classical sciences? Or in professions like doctors and >> lawyers? > >Actually, I think that if you look at how things are handled in this >country in the sciences and medicine, you will find a lot of mentoring. >Physicians serve internships and residencies after graduation from >medical school. Graduate students in the sciences are typically mentored >by their advisors - sometimes well, sometimes not. They often have to >take postdoctoral fellowships as well before obtaining a permanent >position. In the life sciences in particular, it can take years. In fact software engineering has a large amount of poorly described, unsystematic, informal knowledge. Often it is even not a knowledge one can learn, but rather behavioural patterns, or even reflexes, which one rather trains, first. Then one builds a thick layer of all sorts of reflections upon that, to justify it. (mostly wrong reflections, of course (:-)). And so, finally one becomes a true Software Engineer. This makes software engineering so close to arts, where mentoring is indispensable. --- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 15:14 ` Robert Spooner 2003-11-03 15:38 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2003-11-03 16:52 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-11-03 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Robert Spooner wrote: > > I wonder, why do you think that mentoring is more important in software > > engineering than in all classical sciences? Or in professions like doctors and > > lawyers? > > > > Actually, I think that if you look at how things are handled in this > country in the sciences and medicine, you will find a lot of mentoring. > Physicians serve internships and residencies after graduation from > medical school. Graduate students in the sciences are typically mentored > by their advisors - sometimes well, sometimes not. They often have to > take postdoctoral fellowships as well before obtaining a permanent > position. In the life sciences in particular, it can take years. But this is exactly what I intended to say - that software engineering needs mentoring just like other professions that routinely deal with high degree of complexity. I do not dispute the need of mentoring in all such professions, including software engineering. I just dislike a guild as a method for providing and enforcing the mentoring. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-11-03 1:07 ` Standard Library Interest? Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-03 1:27 ` Stephane Richard 2003-11-03 3:58 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-11-03 12:36 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-11-03 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw) One way to do it is to organize it in some way as a business venture. As I've said, I think the level of work needed to get something beyond trivial and of high quality is going to take more effort that will end up being done by a few hobbyists on a part time level. It has to end up funded in some way so that some small number of staff can devote the time needed to it to get it done *right*. Ultimately, its got to generate revenue in some form even if it was being distributed through the vendors because they aren't a charity either. Persuant to any business venture, it is absolutely critical to do some market analysis to find out if there is sufficient interest in the proposed product to make it worth the risk of doing the development, etc. So inquiring around with users as to what they would want *AND* would they be willing to pay to get it, would be a good idea. MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > > I think that in one sense asking the Ada compiler vendors is necessary. > But in another it is irrelevant. If we know what users want and > provide it, the compiler vendors will be asked by THEIR customers to > provide and support it. If the end users don't want it, won't use it, > or can't use it, then this whole effort is a waste of time. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "So if I understand 'The Matrix Reloaded' correctly, the Matrix is basically a Microsoft operating system - it runs for a while and then crashes and reboots. By design, no less. Neo is just a memory leak that's too hard to fix, so they left him in... The users don't complain because they're packed in slush and kept sedated" -- Marin D. Condic ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1067340353.3441.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>]
* Re: Standard Library Interest? [not found] ` <1067340353.3441.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> @ 2003-10-28 11:30 ` Marius Amado Alves 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marius Amado Alves @ 2003-10-28 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 11:25, Marius Amado Alves wrote: > On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 19:36, Stephane Richard wrote: > This thread is going in circles! ... Ooooooooooooooooooooooops... Sorry sorry sorry I though it was a recent message. I really feel stupid letting my stupid mailer making look stupid. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 17:42 ` Larry Hazel 2003-10-07 19:36 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-08 1:07 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 1:15 ` Stephane Richard 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw) I think you still need some kind of "Official Blessing" or its just another website with just another collection of Ada stuff on it. MDC Larry Hazel wrote: >> > Even if it were not distributed with compilers, having everything in one > place as "The Ada Library" rather than bits and pieces here and there, > it would be a great improvement over what we have now. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 1:07 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 1:15 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 1:32 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 15:58 ` Stephen Leake 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-08 1:15 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1093 bytes --] Blessing from? The revision team? APIWG ? Others? -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F83634E.2090401@noplace.com... > I think you still need some kind of "Official Blessing" or its just > another website with just another collection of Ada stuff on it. > > MDC > > > Larry Hazel wrote: > > >> > > Even if it were not distributed with compilers, having everything in one > > place as "The Ada Library" rather than bits and pieces here and there, > > it would be a great improvement over what we have now. > > > > > -- > ====================================================================== > Marin David Condic > I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ > My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm > > Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g > > "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, > live in houses just as big as they can pay for." > > --Logan Pearsall Smith > ====================================================================== > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 1:15 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-08 1:32 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 15:58 ` Stephen Leake 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 1:32 UTC (permalink / raw) We've been there already. My position is that it ultimately needs some sort of blessing from the vendors and/or distribution with their compilers or its Just Another Ada Library hanging around on the internet somewhere along with a few dozen or hundred others that have no general acceptance. But if you want to go create Yet Another Ada Library, go right ahead. In my mind, Ada doesn't really need another Quixotic, semi-supported, overlapping library with no official standing and an uncertain batch of users. I'd prefer not to waste my time by making another library that will get mixed reviews and no acceptance as "The Thing". That's why I want to see some kind of "Official" standing - and its pretty clear (to me at least) who needs to get on board to make it "Official" in some way. MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > Blessing from? The revision team? APIWG ? Others? > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 1:15 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 1:32 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 15:58 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-08 17:24 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-08 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) "Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net> writes: > Blessing from? The revision team? APIWG ? Others? The APIWG would be a good "official" source of blessing. But they do not have the funding to do the work needed. I agree with Marin; only the Ada compiler vendors have the right combination of clout and funding to do this job. Since they do not seem to be interested, I don't see much hope for it. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 15:58 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-08 17:24 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) The APIWG might be a forum in which to build the Reference Implementation and be the basic keepers of what it means to be the Conventional Ada Library. I just don't know that they see that as their goal. That, and it would need some kind of acceptance from the vendors - not just a SIGAda "blessing" The vendors *might* be very interested in it. They might be avoiding jumping into the fray until they see which way the wind is blowing and/or formulating ideas on how to go about it. I wouldn't take the relative silence from the vendors or the ARG to mean they are not in favor of it. They have to exercise some caution in what to back and how to go about it. Unless a few of the vendors would care to respond and declare "Yeah" or "Nay" on the whole concept? Anybody care to go on record? :-) MDC Stephen Leake wrote: > > > The APIWG would be a good "official" source of blessing. But they do > not have the funding to do the work needed. > > I agree with Marin; only the Ada compiler vendors have the right > combination of clout and funding to do this job. Since they do not > seem to be interested, I don't see much hope for it. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 17:17 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 17:42 ` Larry Hazel @ 2003-10-07 18:19 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-07 19:29 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 1:15 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-07 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F82F527.3020101@noplace.com... > Well, yes, that's pretty much compatible with the idea I've been putting > forward. If you have some group or organization overseeing some > updatable library, people could contribute what they thought would be Isn't this the job of the APIWG? I do believe they are supposed to be producing ref-imps not just paper APIs. It would be a Good Idea(tm) if everyone banged on at their compiler vendor about this... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 18:19 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-07 19:29 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-07 20:30 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-08 1:15 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 800 bytes --] "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:blv03f$ko1$1@titan.btinternet.com... > "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message > news:3F82F527.3020101@noplace.com... > > Well, yes, that's pretty much compatible with the idea I've been putting > > forward. If you have some group or organization overseeing some > > updatable library, people could contribute what they thought would be > > Isn't this the job of the APIWG? I do believe they are supposed to > be producing ref-imps not just paper APIs. > > It would be a Good Idea(tm) if everyone banged on at their compiler > vendor about this... > > If the APIWG is there for that, maybe it's them we should bang with emails :-) ?? -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 19:29 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 20:30 ` Martin Dowie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-07 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) "Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net> wrote in message news:EuEgb.31539> > It would be a Good Idea(tm) if everyone banged on at their compiler > > vendor about this... > > If the APIWG is there for that, maybe it's them we should bang with emails > :-) ?? I mean that you have to apply pressure on the compiler venors to support and include or at least point to _prominently_ within their documentation, the APIWG web site. It would be up to the user from their. If you don't advertise these things the average Ada user is going to simply be unaware they exist. I'm not saying that I like the average Ada users lack of gumption but this seems to be the lesson from the previous attempts at "secondary" standards. :-( ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 18:19 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-07 19:29 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-08 1:15 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 21:56 ` Stephane Richard 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 1:15 UTC (permalink / raw) I don't know what the APIWG is up to, but if the "API" part of their name is any indication it would seem they're aiming at providing an "API" - a package spec rather than a spec and body. In other words "Every Man For Himself" which has historically been a) expensive and b) not entirely successful. Maybe they *do* want to provide a reference implementation. If so, I could get on board with that. But I'd like to see some indication that the vendors and/or the ARG has some intention of accepting and blessing (and distributing) the net result. MDC Martin Dowie wrote: > > Isn't this the job of the APIWG? I do believe they are supposed to > be producing ref-imps not just paper APIs. > > It would be a Good Idea(tm) if everyone banged on at their compiler > vendor about this... > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 1:15 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 21:56 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 23:56 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 12:42 ` Standard Library Interest? Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-08 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2931 bytes --] "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F836528.9020906@noplace.com... > I don't know what the APIWG is up to, but if the "API" part of their > name is any indication it would seem they're aiming at providing an > "API" - a package spec rather than a spec and body. In other words > "Every Man For Himself" which has historically been a) expensive and b) > not entirely successful. > > Maybe they *do* want to provide a reference implementation. If so, I > could get on board with that. But I'd like to see some indication that > the vendors and/or the ARG has some intention of accepting and blessing > (and distributing) the net result. > > MDC I emailed a contact at the APIWG who also forwarded my email to select contacts of his through APIWG, WG9 and SIG Ada. Gotten 4 replies so far and expecting more on the way. Thus far, they seem to say that because the standarization process is one of concensus it's hard to make things happen faster they mentionned that to treat a library/amendment etc etc...as mature, they believe it should be running and proven stable in the course of 5 years after which it is deemed mature. Add to the the initial 5 years for a standard revision (as any standard based on consensus) and there's your 10 years turnover. They are not against a centralized API central (the APIWG would mostly take care of APIs however they showed interest in other types of libraries such as data structures, components and the like). They said that if APIWG won't do these other libraries that another working group would be able to accomodate these types of libraries/bindings. They are not against a sub standard repository either, in which changes could happen on a daily bases. As illustrated by some companies already performing this exercise and developing their own additions to the standard that they ship with their distributions. Additions, not changes to the standards :-). As quoted: "Standardization is an admittedly slow process, because it is fundamentally built on consensus. On the other hand, there is nothing precluding a group of users establishing their own reusable libraries, and making them widely available. De-facto standards are often just as good, or even better, than de-jure standards. " I'm no latin speaking individual and I'm curious to know the difference between De-Facto and De-Jure :-). although I have an idea based on the context if this quote hehe.. I dont know if I can get a written and signed blessing document (then again...ya never know :-) out of it. but so far as per the replies I've received it, they welcome the idea of a centralized sour of mature libraries and APIs. Most of those who replied mentionned it right in their emails. I'll keep you posted as I get more replies and ask all the questions I have on my mind. ANd now You're up to date. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 21:56 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-08 23:56 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 0:29 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 16:47 ` POSIX File Structure Conventions for Ada (Was: Standard Library Interest?) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-09 12:42 ` Standard Library Interest? Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-08 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephane Richard wrote: > I'm no latin speaking individual > and I'm curious to know the difference between De-Facto and De-Jure :-). > although I have an idea based on the context if this quote hehe... Roughly "de facto" = "in fact", and "de jure" = "in law". In the standards industry, a de facto standard is something most people use, even though it is not particularly blessed by some standards organization. Windows is a de facto standard, even if you have no idea what will happen when you take some action in Windows, the fact that so many people are using it makes it a de facto standard. Similarly, Linux is a de facto standard, and POSIX is a de jure standard. Is it possible for a version of Linux to be POSIX compliant? Sure. In fact, Windows NT 4.0 was sold as POSIX compliant even if no one other than masochists tried to use the POSIX interface. ;-) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 23:56 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-09 0:29 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 16:47 ` POSIX File Structure Conventions for Ada (Was: Standard Library Interest?) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-09 0:29 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1378 bytes --] "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3F84A3F9.6@comcast.net... > Stephane Richard wrote: > > I'm no latin speaking individual > > and I'm curious to know the difference between De-Facto and De-Jure :-). > > although I have an idea based on the context if this quote hehe... > > Roughly "de facto" = "in fact", and "de jure" = "in law". > > In the standards industry, a de facto standard is something most people > use, even though it is not particularly blessed by some standards > organization. Windows is a de facto standard, even if you have no idea > what will happen when you take some action in Windows, the fact that so > many people are using it makes it a de facto standard. Similarly, Linux > is a de facto standard, and POSIX is a de jure standard. Is it possible > for a version of Linux to be POSIX compliant? Sure. In fact, Windows > NT 4.0 was sold as POSIX compliant even if no one other than masochists > tried to use the POSIX interface. ;-) > -- > Robert I. Eachus I hear ya on the masochists....I admit I tried using it back then. but soon realized that I had 2 choices, go to DOS mode, or die still trying to do any kind of POSIX....guess which door I chose? hehehe -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* POSIX File Structure Conventions for Ada (Was: Standard Library Interest?) 2003-10-08 23:56 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 0:29 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-10 16:47 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-10 17:17 ` Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-10 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus wrote: > Stephane Richard wrote: >> I'm no latin speaking individual >> and I'm curious to know the difference between De-Facto and De-Jure :-). >> although I have an idea based on the context if this quote hehe... > > > Roughly "de facto" = "in fact", and "de jure" = "in law". > > In the standards industry, a de facto standard is something most people > use, even though it is not particularly blessed by some standards > organization. Windows is a de facto standard, even if you have no idea > what will happen when you take some action in Windows, the fact that so > many people are using it makes it a de facto standard. Similarly, Linux > is a de facto standard, and POSIX is a de jure standard. Is it possible > for a version of Linux to be POSIX compliant? Sure. In fact, Windows > NT 4.0 was sold as POSIX compliant even if no one other than masochists > tried to use the POSIX interface. ;-) Which causes me to ask: is there any Ada interested parties working on efforts such as the Linux Standards Base (LSB)? Or is there any Ada based work related to directory/file structure naming in POSIX? I would love to hear what the generally accepted practice is for placing Ada packages on a UNIX file system should be. The library files are already well defined, but where is the standard location to put: Ada specs (and bodies for generics)? Those GNAT *.ali files? in a POSIX compliant platform? On Linux? In /opt? In /usr/local? If so, where in there? Warren. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: POSIX File Structure Conventions for Ada (Was: Standard Library Interest?) 2003-10-10 16:47 ` POSIX File Structure Conventions for Ada (Was: Standard Library Interest?) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-10 17:17 ` Ludovic Brenta 2003-10-11 16:25 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2003-10-10 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw) "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes: > I would love to hear what the generally accepted practice is for > placing Ada packages on a UNIX file system should be. The library > files are already well defined, but where is the standard location > to put: > > Ada specs (and bodies for generics)? > Those GNAT *.ali files? > > in a POSIX compliant platform? On Linux? In /opt? In /usr/local? > If so, where in there? > > Warren. Florian Weimer has put together a proposal for this. Details are available at http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/files/ada/gnae/gnae-0.5.html. I have followed the recommendations in my Debian packages. Basically: *.ad[bs] go in /usr/share/ada/adainclude/<package_name>/ *.ali and *.o go in /usr/lib/ada/adalib/<package_name>/ *.a and *.so go in /usr/lib And I've added: *.gpr go in /usr/share/ada/adainclude/ HTH -- Ludovic Brenta. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: POSIX File Structure Conventions for Ada (Was: Standard Library Interest?) 2003-10-10 17:17 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2003-10-11 16:25 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-11 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw) "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> wrote in message news:m3oewpm2qe.fsf@insalien.org... > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes: > > > I would love to hear what the generally accepted practice is for > > placing Ada packages on a UNIX file system should be. The library > > files are already well defined, but where is the standard location > > to put: ... > > Florian Weimer has put together a proposal for this. Details are > available at http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/files/ada/gnae/gnae-0.5.html. Thanks for the info. This is precisely the type of thing I was looking for. I am also happy to see that Florian is running with this effort. -- Warren W. Gay http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 21:56 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 23:56 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-09 12:42 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 13:07 ` Stephane Richard 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-09 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Except that this didn't answer my question: Is the APIWG seeing itself as being in the business of building a library or just endorsing package specs? All the stuff you mentioned about "Standards" is valid and I have no complaint. At best, I can read into it that the APIWG might put their Nihil Obstat on some library - if and when it had some "general acceptance". Which is to say, they are not in the business of building and maintaining a library and don't particularly want to be. That moves the library mission forward only by a tiny bit - if at all. It is as I suspected - the APIWG is not going to be the place to get this done. So this puts you back at square-one: *IF* you built a library and *IF* you could get the vendors to accept/distribute it and *IF* it met with general acceptance by the public, *THEN* you get a little gold star on your forehead by the APIWG. (At that point, I don't really need the APIWG, do I? Its a de facto standard. De facto: a matter of fact. De jure: a matter of law) That's why I'm lobbying for the route that says "Get the vendors and possibly the ARG involved at the start." If the vendors were to say "Yeah, go ahead and build us something that looks kind of like this and we'll distribute it..." then you've got something working towards a de facto standard that the ARG and the APIWG and the People For The Ada Way and my great uncle George can all go put their little stamp of approval on it. Of course, if it got that far, I don't think we'd need anybody's approval. If it ships with every Ada compiler and its basically the same from one compiler to the next, its part of Ada. MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message > news:3F836528.9020906@noplace.com... > >>I don't know what the APIWG is up to, but if the "API" part of their >>name is any indication it would seem they're aiming at providing an >>"API" - a package spec rather than a spec and body. In other words >>"Every Man For Himself" which has historically been a) expensive and b) >>not entirely successful. >> >>Maybe they *do* want to provide a reference implementation. If so, I >>could get on board with that. But I'd like to see some indication that >>the vendors and/or the ARG has some intention of accepting and blessing >>(and distributing) the net result. >> >>MDC > > > I emailed a contact at the APIWG who also forwarded my email to select > contacts of his through APIWG, WG9 and SIG Ada. Gotten 4 replies so far and > expecting more on the way. > > Thus far, they seem to say that because the standarization process is one of > concensus it's hard to make things happen faster they mentionned that to > treat a library/amendment etc etc...as mature, they believe it should be > running and proven stable in the course of 5 years after which it is deemed > mature. Add to the the initial 5 years for a standard revision (as any > standard based on consensus) and there's your 10 years turnover. They are > not against a centralized API central (the APIWG would mostly take care of > APIs however they showed interest in other types of libraries such as data > structures, components and the like). They said that if APIWG won't do > these other libraries that another working group would be able to accomodate > these types of libraries/bindings. > > They are not against a sub standard repository either, in which changes > could happen on a daily bases. As illustrated by some companies already > performing this exercise and developing their own additions to the standard > that they ship with their distributions. Additions, not changes to the > standards :-). > > As quoted: "Standardization is an admittedly slow process, because it is > fundamentally > built on consensus. On the other hand, there is nothing precluding a group > of users establishing their own reusable libraries, and making them > widely available. De-facto standards are often just as good, or > even better, than de-jure standards. " I'm no latin speaking individual > and I'm curious to know the difference between De-Facto and De-Jure :-). > although I have an idea based on the context if this quote hehe.. > > I dont know if I can get a written and signed blessing document (then > again...ya never know :-) out of it. but so far as per the replies I've > received it, they welcome the idea of a centralized sour of mature libraries > and APIs. Most of those who replied mentionned it right in their emails. > > I'll keep you posted as I get more replies and ask all the questions I have > on my mind. > > ANd now You're up to date. -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 12:42 ` Standard Library Interest? Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-09 13:07 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 3:15 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-09 13:07 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3974 bytes --] > Except that this didn't answer my question: Is the APIWG seeing itself > as being in the business of building a library or just endorsing package > specs? the do API's only. He showed interest of data structures, components, but it would be another group that would be taking care of it. What he did say is that which group it is (which I will find out) he believed that they would prove quite cooperative on the effort. > > All the stuff you mentioned about "Standards" is valid and I have no > complaint. At best, I can read into it that the APIWG might put their > Nihil Obstat on some library - if and when it had some "general > acceptance". Which is to say, they are not in the business of building > and maintaining a library and don't particularly want to be. That moves > the library mission forward only by a tiny bit - if at all. It is as I > suspected - the APIWG is not going to be the place to get this done. > Nope, I alerady replied him with the "Who is it then?" question hopefully today I'll get a reply and we can find out. from what I'm seeing it's one of 7 possible groups: - ARG - Ada Rapporteur Group - ASISRG - Ada Semantics Interface Specification (ASIS) Rapporteur Group - HRG - Annex H Rapporteur Group - NRG - Numerics Rapporteur Group - RRG - Real-Time Rapporteur Group - SRG - SQL/Ada Rapporteur Group - URG - Uniformity Rapporteur Group I'm thinking ARG yes since they seem to deal with Ada in general and not be limited to a single or group of Annexes. URG? I don't but perhaps they would have valuable information as to how to "create the code" a style guide, a minimal documentation template or something like that to help assure a minimal quality of code in teh library. > So this puts you back at square-one: *IF* you built a library and *IF* > you could get the vendors to accept/distribute it and *IF* it met with > general acceptance by the public, *THEN* you get a little gold star on > your forehead by the APIWG. (At that point, I don't really need the > APIWG, do I? Its a de facto standard. De facto: a matter of fact. De > jure: a matter of law) > As for vendors, well I'll ask around and see what kind of answer I get. If they'd welcome them and so on and so forth. Again provided, like you said it is atleast a minimum quality code, with atleast a minimum clarity of documentation (so any programmer can figure out what to do with it :-). and if not in naming conventions also see how to integrate them (to a minimum degree) with at least all related possible "parents" so to speak. "I still like my taxonomy chart (or hierarchy) approach to it all. This way if there were to be to packange of the same name, doing very different things perhaps this way the could still be places on different branches of the hierarchy. if not then perhaps the 2 authors can communicate and see how to fix the naming conflict. (that would be for existing code I assume). we'd have a lookup available so when creating New code they could know if it exists somewhere etc etc... > That's why I'm lobbying for the route that says "Get the vendors and > possibly the ARG involved at the start." If the vendors were to say > "Yeah, go ahead and build us something that looks kind of like this and > we'll distribute it..." then you've got something working towards a de > facto standard that the ARG and the APIWG and the People For The Ada Way > and my great uncle George can all go put their little stamp of approval > on it. Of course, if it got that far, I don't think we'd need anybody's > approval. If it ships with every Ada compiler and its basically the same > from one compiler to the next, its part of Ada. Now if we can get your Uncle George stamp of approval, I call that a success...;-). Like I said the APIWG seemed to say that any group would welcome and be willing to cooeperate. My next phase is to see to what extent. :-) > > MDC > > -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 13:07 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-10 3:15 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-10 8:10 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 3:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephane Richard wrote: >>Except that this didn't answer my question: Is the APIWG seeing itself >>as being in the business of building a library or just endorsing package >>specs? > > the do API's only. He showed interest of data structures, components, but > it would be another group that would be taking care of it. What he did say > is that which group it is (which I will find out) he believed that they > would > prove quite cooperative on the effort. > > >>All the stuff you mentioned about "Standards" is valid and I have no >>complaint. At best, I can read into it that the APIWG might put their >>Nihil Obstat on some library - if and when it had some "general >>acceptance". Which is to say, they are not in the business of building >>and maintaining a library and don't particularly want to be. That moves >>the library mission forward only by a tiny bit - if at all. It is as I >>suspected - the APIWG is not going to be the place to get this done. >> > > Nope, I alerady replied him with the "Who is it then?" question hopefully > today I'll get a reply and we can find out. from what I'm seeing it's one > of > 7 possible groups: > - ARG - Ada Rapporteur Group > - ASISRG - Ada Semantics Interface Specification (ASIS) Rapporteur Group > - HRG - Annex H Rapporteur Group > - NRG - Numerics Rapporteur Group > - RRG - Real-Time Rapporteur Group > - SRG - SQL/Ada Rapporteur Group > - URG - Uniformity Rapporteur Group As far as I know at the current time only the ARG, ASISRG, HRG, and RRG still exist. But I'd have to check... That was quick. http://wwwold.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG9/organize.htm#RGs Cross out the RRG as well. > I'm thinking ARG yes since they seem to deal with Ada in general and not be > limited to a single or group of Annexes. URG? I don't but perhaps they > would have valuable information as to how to "create the code" a style > guide, a minimal documentation template or something like that to help > assure a minimal quality of code in the library. Please don't assign it to the ARG. The ARG always has much more work than they can handle. Bringing back the URG or some new group would be a better idea. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 3:15 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 8:10 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 12:49 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 19:22 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-10 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 856 bytes --] > > Please don't assign it to the ARG. The ARG always has much more work > than they can handle. Bringing back the URG or some new group would be > a better idea. > > > > -- > Robert I. Eachus IF we go the way of a new group, who would we have to talk to to get things started, get the big wheel turning? However I think we should have a basis for a structure to suggest first. So on your other post to Martin, when you say to create a structure of names (atleast) I'd say you're right :-)..if not anything else, a text file that represents an image of a possible end product perhaps? That wouldn't be too long too do. Atleast we'd all see (and be able to agree on) a given layout. For that I have to agreewith you :-). -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 8:10 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-10 12:49 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 13:20 ` Jeff C, 2003-10-10 19:22 ` Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Start with the vendors. Who is still out there producing Ada compilers and with the intention of upgrading them to Ada0x? ACT? Aonix? RR? Rational? DDC-I? Which of these vendors (And others? Who else is out there?) are still actively interested in enhancing their products? The vendors who are still actively interested in Ada probably have some representation in the ARG. If they are still actively selling Ada, they probably have some technical person who could be contacted. Ask them what *THEY* want to see happen. Its all a most profound - possibly even sinful - waste of time to run off and start putting something together if the key players are going to end up saying "No Way". Find out what their requirements are and what they want to see happen and maybe we can make sure we got something organized that would meet their needs. With something like a library, Ada has a chance to build a new culture of "Customer Orientation" - Lets not just rush off and start building things because we think they are theoretically nice or intellectually satisfying. Lets build things that will satisfy the customer because we bothered to *ASK* the customers what they want. Market Research ought to be really key here. MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > > IF we go the way of a new group, who would we have to talk to to get things > started, get the big wheel turning? > > However I think we should have a basis for a structure to suggest first. So > on your other post to Martin, when you say to create a structure of names > (atleast) I'd say you're right :-)..if not anything else, a text file that > represents an image of a possible end product perhaps? That wouldn't be too > long too do. Atleast we'd all see (and be able to agree on) a given layout. > For that I have to agreewith you :-). > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 12:49 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 13:20 ` Jeff C, 2003-10-11 14:48 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Jeff C, @ 2003-10-10 13:20 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F86AAE2.4090907@noplace.com... > Start with the vendors. Who is still out there producing Ada compilers > and with the intention of upgrading them to Ada0x? ACT? Aonix? RR? > Rational? DDC-I? Which of these vendors (And others? Who else is out > there?) are still actively interested in enhancing their products? > Vendors that I think still have active products include: ACT RR Rational DDC-I Greenhills OC Systems Concurrent Computer Corp ICC It at least appears as if these products are still being support. It will be interesting to see who invests the money to move forward to Ada 0x. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 13:20 ` Jeff C, @ 2003-10-11 14:48 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-11 15:09 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-11 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Is there anybody out there from any of these companies reading this list who would care to make some kind of statement on the subject? Even "We're looking into it..." is a better answer than nothing at all. Are these companies represented in the ARG? If so, that's a good reason to take the issue to the ARG and ask them to respond. (You've got all the suspects in one place - ask them if they want a standard library and would be willing to distribute one if it were to be brought about somehow...) You need some feedback that says these guys are on board or whatever gets done is going to be at best Just Another Ada Library hanging around somewhere on the internet. (And I do mean *AT BEST* because it has been tried before and mostly augered in with little to no net results to show for it.) MDC Jeff C, wrote: > > > Vendors that I think still have active products include: > > ACT > RR > Rational > DDC-I > Greenhills > OC Systems > Concurrent Computer Corp > ICC > > It at least appears as if these products are still being support. > It will be interesting to see who invests the money to move forward to Ada > 0x. > > > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 14:48 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-11 15:09 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-11 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1169 bytes --] "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F88181E.7050200@noplace.com... > Is there anybody out there from any of these companies reading this list > who would care to make some kind of statement on the subject? Even > "We're looking into it..." is a better answer than nothing at all. > > Are these companies represented in the ARG? If so, that's a good reason > to take the issue to the ARG and ask them to respond. (You've got all > the suspects in one place - ask them if they want a standard library and > would be willing to distribute one if it were to be brought about > somehow...) > > You need some feedback that says these guys are on board or whatever > gets done is going to be at best Just Another Ada Library hanging around > somewhere on the internet. (And I do mean *AT BEST* because it has been > tried before and mostly augered in with little to no net results to show > for it.) > > > I got in touch with ACT, they'll be calling me on monday morning so we can talk about that, the idea itself, what they think about it, any insight, etc etc.... :-). -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 8:10 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 12:49 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 19:22 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 11:30 ` Stephane Richard ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephane Richard wrote: > However I think we should have a basis for a structure to suggest first. So > on your other post to Martin, when you say to create a structure of names > (atleast) I'd say you're right :-)..if not anything else, a text file that > represents an image of a possible end product perhaps? That wouldn't be too > long too do. Atleast we'd all see (and be able to agree on) a given layout. > For that I have to agreewith you :-). It would be nice to have a good proposal and presentation in shape for the WG9 meeting in San Diego, and get it on the agenda. As I have said, I think the right approach is to keep the standards related part of this small: An on-line registry of top-level library names. But notice that once you go the standards route, there are potential political issues hiding all around. In this case, I think the right approach is to have a registry which for all practical purposes is a de facto listing of all the library names that are being used. But the "official" list would have to pass up the approval chain through WG9 every so often, and there would have to be procedures for dealing with conflicting registrations and so on. In other words, a search of the list would return all known names that matched, with probably a one word status: Registered, Pending, Rejected, Withdrawn, Unknown, Delisted. If I were doing it I would probably set up a nominal registration fee for top level names. It should be small enough not to pain those who are doing the registration to contribute to the community, and high-enough so that if a cyber-squatter wants to try it, he can fund the whole operation, including the clerical overhead of rejecting most or all of his requests. ;-) Or we could just have a rule about the number of top level libraries registered by one person or corporation. If we work at it, it could be in place and working by the San Diego meeting on a provisional basis, then Marin can file a registration application for CAL that states the current contents and the rules for adding to it. St�phane can register SAL, ACT can register GNAT, and so on. (If I get a vote on who gets approved, I'm going to look for libraries that exist, are well documented, include unit tests, and are useful. So get busy. ;-) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 19:22 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-11 11:30 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 12:36 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-15 16:35 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-11 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3923 bytes --] See my comments amongst yours :-). "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3F8706CA.7040704@comcast.net... > It would be nice to have a good proposal and presentation in shape for > the WG9 meeting in San Diego, and get it on the agenda. As I have said, > I think the right approach is to keep the standards related part of this > small: An on-line registry of top-level library names. But notice that > once you go the standards route, there are potential political issues > hiding all around. *** Which makes the deadline which date ? *** I would think the idea is to keep away from the Ada branch (except if we want to add basic functionality to any of the standard Ada packages, like you said, in that case we could let it be known that it exists in our library but it would be the WG9's role to accept it, reject it, etc etc since it is under the Ada standard hierarchy. Ultimately we could have an Ada top level name that would serve just for that purpose perhaps. or a "Standard" branch as to not conflict with the Ada name itself. But a branch just for that might be a good idea. > > In this case, I think the right approach is to have a registry which for > all practical purposes is a de facto listing of all the library names > that are being used. But the "official" list would have to pass up the > approval chain through WG9 every so often, and there would have to be > procedures for dealing with conflicting registrations and so on. In > other words, a search of the list would return all known names that > matched, with probably a one word status: Registered, Pending, Rejected, > Withdrawn, Unknown, Delisted. *** Sounds good to me, and since Ada is case insensitive MyStatsLibrary and mystatslibrary would be the same and should return a conflict. > > If I were doing it I would probably set up a nominal registration fee > for top level names. It should be small enough not to pain those who > are doing the registration to contribute to the community, and > high-enough so that if a cyber-squatter wants to try it, he can fund the > whole operation, including the clerical overhead of rejecting most or > all of his requests. ;-) Or we could just have a rule about the number > of top level libraries registered by one person or corporation. *** I would suggest here that fees depend on the purpose of the submission. I wouldn't want to charge a fee to a programmer that puts an OpenSource licence on his submission. Free Software is Free Software. But if the aim of the library or binding etc etc is a commercial one then a fee could be in order. and of course should an open source submission's author want to turn it into a commercial licence then the "fee" would need to apply in this scenario. > > If we work at it, it could be in place and working by the San Diego > meeting on a provisional basis, then Marin can file a registration > application for CAL that states the current contents and the rules for > adding to it. St�phane can register SAL, ACT can register GNAT, and so > on. (If I get a vote on who gets approved, I'm going to look for > libraries that exist, are well documented, include unit tests, and are > useful. So get busy. ;-) *** And again when's the San Diego meeting? How much time do we have? > > -- > Robert I. Eachus *** I've started work on a possible structure of the "CAL" library (is that now the official name?) we'll call it that until we know :-). What we could do here on the board is perhaps state a list of what sections would be needed in the documentation to assure that it's clear enough. I'd suggest HTML as the file format for those docs so they can be indexed on search engines so that they are available outside the scope of the library itself. but that's just a suggestion :-). -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 19:22 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 11:30 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-11 12:36 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 17:41 ` sk 2003-10-11 18:08 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-15 16:35 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-11 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --] Here is the first draft, Now this is an initial suggestion, I don't expect this to be the final word, we probably need to work on it :-). but hey it's a start. http://www.adaworld.com/cal/cal_library.txt Remember that this hierarchy is not representative of search methods, we could search many more ways than is suggested by the hierarchy, just the layout (folder/file wise) of the library. since the names will be in a database, it would be easy to search anyway we want. However, the hierarchy would and should be the "list of categories" in the database for proper organization of it all. Hence a new entry would need to be "categorized" by the author or by someone else. so it can be indexed on searches properly. P.S. I would have attached this but it seems attachments on newsgroups is "impossible" or highly unrecommended :-). -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 12:36 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-11 17:41 ` sk 2003-10-11 17:43 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 18:08 ` Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: sk @ 2003-10-11 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada stephane.richard@verizon.net: > ... probably need to work on it :-). but hey it's a start. > > http://www.adaworld.com/cal/cal_library.txt > > Remember that this hierarchy is not representative of search ... Interesting but what is the difference between this and my proposal, which nobody showed interest for, in the thread "Newbie: Display Control" which was renamed to "Ada2005 clear screen etc" started in march of this year ? -- ------------------------------------------------- -- Merge vertically for real address -- -- s n p @ t . o -- k i e k c c m ------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 17:41 ` sk @ 2003-10-11 17:43 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-11 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1055 bytes --] "sk" <noname@myob.com> wrote in message news:mailman.68.1065893639.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org... > stephane.richard@verizon.net: > > ... probably need to work on it :-). but hey it's a start. > > > > http://www.adaworld.com/cal/cal_library.txt > > > > Remember that this hierarchy is not representative of search ... > > Interesting but what is the difference between this and my proposal, > which nobody showed interest for, in the thread "Newbie: Display > Control" which was renamed to "Ada2005 clear screen etc" started > in march of this year ? > I dont recall seeing this thread, I use outlook (awaiting flames just about now hehehe)....so things tend to dissapear if unanswered ... By no means did I mean to superseed an initial proposal. I'm sorry, but I did not know about it. I'll use Mozilla to retrace your post (unless you can include as a reply to this message. See what we can do. But I didn't mean any conflict by suggesting this structure :-) -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 12:36 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 17:41 ` sk @ 2003-10-11 18:08 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 18:11 ` Stephane Richard ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-11 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephane Richard wrote: > Here is the first draft, > > Now this is an initial suggestion, I don't expect this to be the final word, > we probably need to work on it :-). but hey it's a start. > > http://www.adaworld.com/cal/cal_library.txt > > Remember that this hierarchy is not representative of search methods, we > could search many more ways than is suggested by the hierarchy, just the > layout (folder/file wise) of the library. since the names will be in a > database, it would be easy to search anyway we want. However, the hierarchy > would and should be the "list of categories" in the database for proper > organization of it all. Hence a new entry would need to be "categorized" by > the author or by someone else. so it can be indexed on searches properly. > > P.S. I would have attached this but it seems attachments on newsgroups is > "impossible" or highly unrecommended :-). In part, you are heading in a slightly different direction than I am. For example, I think it would be a good idea to have an OS tree directly within Standard, and Windows, Linux, Unix, under that. Each of these might have grandchildren for specific versions of those OSes. Similarly, I don't think Graphics and database bindings belong in Ada or CAL. I think they should go in Interfaces. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 18:08 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-11 18:11 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-12 1:33 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-15 16:42 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-11 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 903 bytes --] "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3F8846DF.8050303@comcast.net... > > In part, you are heading in a slightly different direction than I am. > For example, I think it would be a good idea to have an OS tree directly > within Standard, and Windows, Linux, Unix, under that. Each of these > might have grandchildren for specific versions of those OSes. > > Similarly, I don't think Graphics and database bindings belong in Ada or > CAL. I think they should go in Interfaces. See? that's exactly what it's for, we have a basis, one to build on, change, tell me I should be smoking something else, heheheh etc etc...we're working, we're progressing this way :-)...maybe I'll take that file paste it in an email, start a new thread so we can all work at it, edit it and make it what it should be :-). -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 18:08 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 18:11 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-12 1:33 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 5:16 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-15 16:42 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 1:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Is that end-user extendable? I've never had a reason to try. I'd agree that given the name "Interfaces" we'd be wise to include anything that smacked of a "binding" into that part. For example, you might have a Ada.OS or a Standard.OS that provided some Ada-flavored, portable (mostly) facilities for using common OS capabilities. (Directories, files, networks, etc.) Then under "Interfaces" you might have "Interfaces.Windows" that provided thin bindings to the Win32api. The Ada user has a choice: Build his app with the Ada-ish, portable features found in Standard.OS and suffer whatever limitations might have been sacrificed for the greater good of "portability" *OR* dip directly into the non-portable Win32api and get full access to anything the OS provides while suffering through the C-ish nature of the interface. I still think that the question of how to organize the tree(s) is something that could be hammered out at a later point. If we got a charter from the vendors and ARG to do *something* a SIGAda team might be formed up to come up with the "how" issues and perhaps start establishing some guidelines. Get acceptance for the concept, then set someone up to be the Keeper Of The Eternal Flame and act as the editor/publisher. They'd come back to the principals and say "Here's our plan..." From there, it just starts to become a mere matter of technical details and probably funding. If we wanted to, we could get all tangled up in details such as "What should we use for a configuration management system?" or "What document formats should we support?" Eventually, we'd have to answer those questions, but right now, we've got a bigger issue of gaining acceptance for the general concept. I'd think we want to worry about that first and let the rest fall out as "implementation details" once someone sets the direction and annoints an editor or team of editors to go worry about it. MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > Similarly, I don't think Graphics and database bindings belong in Ada or > CAL. I think they should go in Interfaces. > > > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 1:33 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 5:16 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-12 5:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Is that end-user extendable? I've never had a reason to try. Technically with GNAT, all the predefined library packages can be recompiled in non-standard mode (i.e. using -gnatg). Other compilers have other rules, and I don't have first hand knowledge of what they do. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 18:08 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 18:11 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-12 1:33 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-15 16:42 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-15 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus wrote: > Stephane Richard wrote: >> Here is the first draft, >> Now this is an initial suggestion, I don't expect this to be the final >> word, >> we probably need to work on it :-). but hey it's a start. >> >> http://www.adaworld.com/cal/cal_library.txt >> >> Remember that this hierarchy is not representative of search methods, we >> could search many more ways than is suggested by the hierarchy, just the >> layout (folder/file wise) of the library. since the names will be in a >> database, it would be easy to search anyway we want. However, the >> hierarchy >> would and should be the "list of categories" in the database for proper >> organization of it all. Hence a new entry would need to be >> "categorized" by >> the author or by someone else. so it can be indexed on searches properly. >> >> P.S. I would have attached this but it seems attachments on newsgroups is >> "impossible" or highly unrecommended :-). > > In part, you are heading in a slightly different direction than I am. > For example, I think it would be a good idea to have an OS tree directly > within Standard, and Windows, Linux, Unix, under that. Each of these > might have grandchildren for specific versions of those OSes. > > Similarly, I don't think Graphics and database bindings belong in Ada or > CAL. I think they should go in Interfaces. I would prefer to see much that would show up in the Linux/Unix, and some of Win32, to appear under POSIX (like FLORIST). I would only expect to see OS unique things under the other OS headings. The other thing is, it would be nice if some common denominator of console I/O (other than tty) was available. This is a tall order, if you insist on including colour(color) and blink attributes, but if you could subset that to clear screen, cursor position etc., that would fill a needed gap. The OS specific child libraries, could then take that further. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 19:22 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 11:30 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 12:36 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-15 16:35 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-16 12:59 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-15 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus wrote: > Stephane Richard wrote: ... > If I were doing it I would probably set up a nominal registration fee > for top level names. It should be small enough not to pain those who > are doing the registration to contribute to the community, and > high-enough so that if a cyber-squatter wants to try it, he can fund the > whole operation, including the clerical overhead of rejecting most or > all of his requests. ;-) Or we could just have a rule about the number > of top level libraries registered by one person or corporation. The way I would deal with the squatters is that they have to contribute/produce a product that uses that name within a given time frame (1-2 years?) What is produced should optionally be reviewed, and at the registration committee's discretion, allow the name to stand or be dropped (anything trivial or junky for the purpose of squatting can be rejected this way). Failure to "produce", obviously means that you give up the name. A conflict resolution process will also likely need some planning as well. But initially, it could just take the "might is right" path ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-15 16:35 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-16 12:59 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-17 19:54 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-16 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw) What's wrong with saying "You don't have some God-given right to a name. You have to ask, beg, plead with me to get one. If I don't like it, I say no. If I give it to you, I can pull it back any time I want. Game over." Whoever ends up Keeper Of The Eternal Flame can limit it to whatever they want. They can entertain only serious developers who have something concrete to offer. Internet dweebs who hope to cash in by grabbing all sorts of names need not even bother applying. MDC Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > The way I would deal with the squatters is that they have to > contribute/produce a product that uses that name within a given > time frame (1-2 years?) What is produced should optionally be > reviewed, and at the registration committee's discretion, allow > the name to stand or be dropped (anything trivial or junky for > the purpose of squatting can be rejected this way). > > Failure to "produce", obviously means that you give up the name. > A conflict resolution process will also likely need some > planning as well. But initially, it could just take the "might > is right" path ;-) > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 12:59 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-17 19:54 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-17 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > What's wrong with saying "You don't have some God-given right to a name. > You have to ask, beg, plead with me to get one. If I don't like it, I > say no. If I give it to you, I can pull it back any time I want. Game > over." It works if the dictatorship is a good one ;-) But good dictatorships rarely stay good, if they even ever start off as a good one. > Whoever ends up Keeper Of The Eternal Flame can limit it to whatever > they want. They can entertain only serious developers who have something > concrete to offer. But a value judgement is required here. Someone may come out with a console I/O package, that favours the design of windows console sessions. The judge(s) who might be more favourable to Linux, might then disagree, and want to keep the name reserved for some (in their minds) more superior idea. A conflict develops. OTOH, the package writer doesn't want to have the rug yanked out, after he has released the product, only because the judge(s) later decided that it sucks and shouldn't be there. > Internet dweebs who hope to cash in by grabbing all > sorts of names need not even bother applying. > > MDC I hear ya, but in life, there are often two sides of the story that need to be examined. After a divorce there is his side, her side, and the truth! ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <8d6b51-0u3.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com>]
* Re: Standard Library Interest? [not found] ` <8d6b51-0u3.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> @ 2003-10-07 23:58 ` Stephane Richard [not found] ` <f8nc51-gv2.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-07 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw) > > Sounds like you want to take Ada OUT OF the standards system totally. > (Who would be the "makers" of Ada? Some coalition of compiler writers?). > > How many incompatible features do the various Linux distributions > contain? Debian packages vs RPMs, etc. > > No, not at all, Ada should remain as standard as it is, my real goal is to get rid of the 10 year period if wait to get anything new accepted as a standard, not get rid of the standard itself. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. But Ada MUST be standard, it's its strenght. But 10 years is a really long time to geta revision especially in the computer world. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <f8nc51-gv2.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com>]
* Re: Standard Library Interest? [not found] ` <f8nc51-gv2.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> @ 2003-10-08 12:45 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 16:00 ` Stephen Leake 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Be fair. We have not been suggesting that the cycle of ARM/Language revision be done at a faster rate. Just that a *library* (which doesn't change the syntax or semantics of the language itself) ought to be able to get updated at a faster rate. Yes, other language standards take about 10 years to update as well and I don't think that needs to be "fixed". But if you're going to have a library, you need to be able to let it grow to accommodate new developments in the computer world, so ten years is too long. A good example might be if you had an XML branch of the library. XML itself is not under such rigorous control as the ARM so it is evolving. As it extends and needs new support, would you want to wait ten years to get it? An XML DOM would be a wonderful thing to have in a library and "Standard" in the sense that all compilers provided the same interface. So you'd like a reference implementation that all vendors used. You'd like to update it as XML grows and changes. If it were in the ARM, you would be SOL. MDC Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: >> > > Seems common in my experience... FORTRAN IV (F-66), FORTRAN-77, > Fortran-90 (11 years, then 13 years). I think there have only been two, > maybe three, formal standards for COBOL since the COBOL-74 standard. > > C was only standardized what, 1990? C++ was standardized when, 98? > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? [not found] ` <f8nc51-gv2.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> 2003-10-08 12:45 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 16:00 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-08 17:37 ` Stephane Richard [not found] ` <hdbf51-523.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-08 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > C was only standardized what, 1990? 1989 > C++ was standardized when, 98? 1996 (Ada was the first Internationally Standardized Object Oriented Language. I just like saying that :). -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 16:00 ` Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-08 17:37 ` Stephane Richard [not found] ` <hdbf51-523.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-08 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 235 bytes --] > (Ada was the first Internationally Standardized Object Oriented > Language. I just like saying that :). > > -- > -- Stephe And I just like hearing it. ;-) -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <hdbf51-523.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com>]
* Re: Standard Library Interest? [not found] ` <hdbf51-523.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> @ 2003-10-09 14:24 ` Hyman Rosen 2003-10-10 12:06 ` Stephane Richard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Hyman Rosen @ 2003-10-09 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw) Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > Is the STL defined as part of the language standard Yes. By the way, C++ cognoscenti are addressing similar library issues. The complaints are the same - we need more libraries because (insert: Java, C#, Windows, etc.) has them and we're falling behind, and trying to get them into the standard is too slow. There's already a central site which is focusing on being the place where proposed libraries live, <http://www.boost.org/>. It might be fruitful to read through it to see how their policies work. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 14:24 ` Hyman Rosen @ 2003-10-10 12:06 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 15:03 ` Stephen Leake 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-10 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1637 bytes --] > By the way, C++ cognoscenti are addressing similar library issues. > The complaints are the same - we need more libraries because > (insert: Java, C#, Windows, etc.) has them and we're falling behind, > and trying to get them into the standard is too slow. > > There's already a central site which is focusing on being the place > where proposed libraries live, <http://www.boost.org/>. It might be > fruitful to read through it to see how their policies work. > I just took a look at it, and I'd say you're right, it's worth looking into. Mix in Ada Style And quality for coding style, create our own hierarchy of libraries because their idea is pretty good, I for one would use a different "classification" approach to the library, one that reflects the Ada Style and quality. But as far as processes go (reviewing of libraries, different steps to get a idea into a usabe/reusable stable library state) their approach seems pretty good. Perhaps we can borrow a few tips and tricks. As for how I'd see the "classification" process? As I mentionned previously, somewhat of a taxonomy chart of libraries (which could and would represent object dependancies, agretations, containments within each other) would be good in my book. As a basis of course, the means to search the hierarchy could be from anything to anything as in, keyword searches, library type search, named searches, anything at all. and those search mechanisms could grow as we find ways to search "intelligently" through the hierarchy or get demands to search by this or that criteria. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 12:06 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-10 15:03 ` Stephen Leake 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2003-10-10 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) somebody (I didn't get the original post) writes: > By the way, C++ cognoscenti are addressing similar library issues. ><snip> > > There's already a central site which is focusing on being the place > where proposed libraries live, <http://www.boost.org/>. It might be > fruitful to read through it to see how their policies work. Note that Boost is supported by Boost consulting, which is making money selling support and development services for the Boost library. That's a good business model, but it relies on a large customer base. Maybe part of Ada's problem is that it's so easy to write good code that nobody needs support for a good library :). -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 1:38 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 11:44 ` chris 2003-10-05 15:16 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 17:41 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-05 17:48 ` chris 2003-10-05 23:57 ` Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-05 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote: : Huh? Read the RM: <i>The predefined type Wide_Character is a : character type whose values correspond to the 65536 code positions of : the ISO 10646 Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP). : : The BMP character set is identical to Unicode. How can this be when Unicode has more than 65536 code positions? (Assuming I wanted to use full Unicode, I guess I will have to rely on Implementation Permissions to provide me with a corresponding character type?) Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 17:41 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-05 17:48 ` chris 2003-10-05 23:57 ` Robert I. Eachus 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: chris @ 2003-10-05 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > How can this be when Unicode has more than 65536 code positions? > (Assuming I wanted to use full Unicode, I guess I will have to rely > on Implementation Permissions to provide me with a corresponding > character type?) I was going to ask that, but assumed BMP uses the same extension mechanism as unicode to achieve more than 65536 code points. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 17:41 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-05 17:48 ` chris @ 2003-10-05 23:57 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-07 1:44 ` Georg Bauhaus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-05 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > How can this be when Unicode has more than 65536 code positions? > (Assuming I wanted to use full Unicode, I guess I will have to rely > on Implementation Permissions to provide me with a corresponding > character type?) If you are that familiar with Unicode... Ada Wide_Character corresponds to the ISO 10646 BMP, and to Unicode. ISO 10646 defines a 32-bit mapping for code points, broken into octets, and further into 16-bit (two octet) planes. It also defines three encoding mechanisms, UTF-8, UTF-16, and UTF-32. Unicode corresponds to UTF-16, where most 16-bit encodings map to single code points, and encodings in the surrogates area are used to encode code points from other planes. These encodings consist of a high surrogate from the range 16#DC00# to 16#DFFF# followed by a low surrogate from the range 16#D800# to 16#DBFF#. Technically Ada encodes the BMP and will not damage any embedded surrogates, but surrogate pairs will not be counted as a single code point. If anyone wants to use "full" Unicode in Ada, the more appropriate approach would be to add support for UTF-32 as Wide_Wide_Character. But in practice, there would be no difference between Ada's treatment of Wide_Character as the BMP or an encoding using UTF-16, because of the way Unicode has defined the surrogate characters. Most of the 'missing' Unicode support has to do with display rules that apply to printers not to strings. If you want to write a subprogram to determine the length of a Wide_Character string in characters, you can't do it without adopting specific language rules on what is or is not a character. For example Hangul (a form of Korean) combines up to three code points into a single Hangul character, which represents a syllable. Or Vietnamese, which can have several accent marks on a single (Latin) character. It is certainly possible to have a (written language dependent) set of categorization routines that correctly sorts Wide_Character representations into appropriate categories for that language. (Character, symbol, numeric digit, etc.) But I would hesitate to even try to come up with a language independent mapping. For example Pi is a mathematical symbol in English, but a capital letter in Greek. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 23:57 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-07 1:44 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-08 20:44 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-07 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote: : If you are that familiar with Unicode... (Ordered a copy of ISO 10646 1) I was thinking, or dreaming as it now turns out, of I/O streams where Unicode has been used "properly", i.e. where PI has been chosen to be a MATHEMATICAL PI, but alas, there is no such PI among the 29 PIs, even among the 15 MATHEMATICAL bold, italic, small, and capital PIs. (No small caps PI at least ;-) : But I would hesitate to even : try to come up with a language independent mapping. For example Pi is a : mathematical symbol in English, but a capital letter in Greek. Ah well, I'm beginning to see the difficulties, thanks. The Babel effect won't be stopped by Unicode ;-) Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 1:44 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-08 20:44 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 2:05 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-08 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Ah well, I'm beginning to see the difficulties, thanks. The Babel > effect won't be stopped by Unicode ;-) What Unicode and ISO 10646 have finally managed to do is associate standard names with characters. As you point out, there are cases where there are many identical glyphs with different names, such as LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, GREEK CAPITAL LETTER A, and CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER A. But at least now the Babel effect is well documented. Although there was a lot of resistance to the standard initially for political reasons. As far as I know, the fall of the Soviet Union has ended the problem the Russians had with including some Georgian letters, and the various wars and so on in former Yugoslavia may have ended concerns about some Macedonian characters on the part of the Greeks. And then there is Quebec. To you and I, the concept of going to war over characters in an alphabet may seem strange, but there were a couple of times when it almost came to that. In fact, the Greeks refused to recognize the Republic of Macedonia unless they changed the way the country's name was written in English! I kid you not, the Macadonian and Greek versions of the name were fine, but the Greeks wanted to get the Americans, British and so on to use a different name for the country. I think the political compromise was for the UN to refer to Macedonia as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in English. I have no idea of what the French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Chinese versions are like. Hmmm. The United Nations site gives: English: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; FYR of Macedonia French: ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine Spanish: ex República Yugoslava de Macedonia Russian: бывшая югославская Республика Македония Arabic: جمهورية مقدونيا اليوغوسلافية السابقة Chinese: 前南斯拉夫的马其顿共和国 The European Union site: http://europa.eu.int/eurodicautom/Controller gives: English: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia German: Ehemalige jugoslawische Republik Mazedonien French: Ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine Italian: Ex Repubblica jugoslava di Macedonia all referencing ISO 3166-1:1997 So it seems pretty consistant. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 20:44 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-09 2:05 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-10-09 5:39 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-10-09 2:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Robert I. Eachus wrote (about Unicode): > As far as I know, the fall of the Soviet Union has ended the problem the > Russians had with including some Georgian letters, Georgian? This seems strange... well, I could expect any twist from Soviet representatives in international organizations, but I can't guess any reasons for this particular one. There could be another problem, which had some political potential - there were several Russian letters that were used before 1918, and were forcibly excluded from the alphabet by early Communist decree. These letters weren't used in Soviet times (being qualified as things from "damned Tsarist past"), and any attempt to give them some official status could invoke resistance. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 2:05 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2003-10-09 5:39 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 9:06 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-09 5:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: > Georgian? This seems strange... well, I could expect any twist from Soviet > representatives in international organizations, but I can't guess any reasons > for this particular one. There could be another problem, which had some > political potential - there were several Russian letters that were used before > 1918, and were forcibly excluded from the alphabet by early Communist decree. > These letters weren't used in Soviet times (being qualified as things from > "damned Tsarist past"), and any attempt to give them some official status > could invoke resistance. Exactly, and Georgian retained one or more of them, was it D and/or G? Of course, the (old USSR) position was that Georgian was not a separate language from Russian, and the problem was separating GOST from that old dogma. I can't remember, and I just spent way too much time looking through JTC1/SC2/WG2 and WG3 documents on-line. I'd probably have to find the early votes on DIS 10646, and I don't even know if they are on line. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 5:39 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-09 9:06 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2003-10-09 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:39:14 GMT, "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote: >Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: > >> Georgian? This seems strange... well, I could expect any twist from Soviet >> representatives in international organizations, but I can't guess any reasons >> for this particular one. There could be another problem, which had some >> political potential - there were several Russian letters that were used before >> 1918, and were forcibly excluded from the alphabet by early Communist decree. >> These letters weren't used in Soviet times (being qualified as things from >> "damned Tsarist past"), and any attempt to give them some official status >> could invoke resistance. > >Exactly, and Georgian retained one or more of them, was it D and/or G? >Of course, the (old USSR) position was that Georgian was not a separate >language from Russian, and the problem was separating GOST from that old >dogma. I can't remember, and I just spent way too much time looking >through JTC1/SC2/WG2 and WG3 documents on-line. I'd probably have to >find the early votes on DIS 10646, and I don't even know if they are on >line. Mmm, Georgian alphabet(s) has nothing to do with Cyrillic or any of its multiple incarnations. Well, there are remote thoughts that maybe it is also rooted in the Greek alphabet ... But better see: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/georgian.htm http://www.omniglot.com/writing/georgian2.htm Probably you mean Georgian-Russian? --- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 0:09 Standard Library Interest? chris 2003-10-05 1:38 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-05 14:49 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-05 15:25 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 15:02 ` Marin David Condic ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-05 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw) chris wrote: > Hi, > > Recent discussions with Marin David Condic /suggest/ the development of > some kind of standard library independant of the ARM, but hopefully > endorsed by vendors and the ARG, would be a worthwhile endeavour. > Assuming such a library could be created and was attractive to the > community, vendors and the ARG what would people want of such a library? You are not the first one: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ascl/ http://ascl.sourceforge.net/ However the ascl seem to be stalled but you could take it over and continue. As for help: I am with you. With Regards Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net http://www.ada.krischik.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 14:49 ` Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-05 15:25 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 15:51 ` sk 2003-10-06 16:42 ` Martin Krischik 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw) And therein lies the problem. Without some leadership, direction and *probably* some financial commitment in some form, these all-volunteer efforts tend to stall, drift and produce little. Even if it did, without some implicit buy-in from the vendors and ARG, its just another library amongst many. Go look at all the stuff sitting on AdaPower and elsewhere. Its fine work and great that people out it out there. None of it has been adopted and declared to be "The Thing", so its got overlap, varying styles, varying quality, varying levels of support and enhancement, etc. None of it comes along for the ride with any compiler, so nobody can point to it and say "I can count on this being in the development environment so all Ada programmers will know about it, use it, etc." It needs ARG and vendor support and direction or its mostly wasted effort. MDC Martin Krischik wrote: > > You are not the first one: > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/ascl/ > http://ascl.sourceforge.net/ > > However the ascl seem to be stalled but you could take it over and continue. > > As for help: I am with you. > > With Regards > > Martin -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 15:25 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 15:51 ` sk 2003-10-05 18:23 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 16:42 ` Martin Krischik 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: sk @ 2003-10-05 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>: > ... Go look at all the stuff sitting on AdaPower and > elsewhere. ... ... speaking of which, "The C++ To Ada Translation Page" hosted as "http://www.mcondic.com/C-Plus-Plus_Programming.html" Any chance you could remedy the situation ? -- ------------------------------------------------- -- Merge vertically for real address -- -- s n p @ t . o -- k i e k c c m ------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 15:51 ` sk @ 2003-10-05 18:23 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 19:14 ` Stephane Richard ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Not much chance. My original web host went casters up and I had not bothered to find another one, move the pages or even renew the domain name. Time being of the essence and other projects being more important, this one fell on the wayside. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of those who put links on their site to check them periodically and delete the ones that are no longer valid. I don't control AdaPower, so I can't update their links. I don't know if anyone is making much effort to frequently update AdaPower anyway - we're all busy and these sorts of "hobbies" can be too time consuming. I make no apologies for having a defunct web page. If everyone who had one were required to apologize for it, we'd here an endless echo of "I'm Sorry!!!" coming out of San Jose. ;-) MDC sk wrote: > Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>: > > > ... Go look at all the stuff sitting on AdaPower and > > elsewhere. ... > > ... speaking of which, "The C++ To Ada Translation Page" > hosted as "http://www.mcondic.com/C-Plus-Plus_Programming.html" > > Any chance you could remedy the situation ? > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 18:23 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 19:14 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-06 13:15 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 19:35 ` Jeffrey Carter 2003-10-06 16:48 ` Martin Krischik 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-05 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1888 bytes --] Is there a URL to get it at right now? if so which is it? I can update AdaPower :-) -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F806193.8010008@noplace.com... > Not much chance. My original web host went casters up and I had not > bothered to find another one, move the pages or even renew the domain > name. Time being of the essence and other projects being more important, > this one fell on the wayside. > > Ultimately, it is the responsibility of those who put links on their > site to check them periodically and delete the ones that are no longer > valid. I don't control AdaPower, so I can't update their links. I don't > know if anyone is making much effort to frequently update AdaPower > anyway - we're all busy and these sorts of "hobbies" can be too time > consuming. > > I make no apologies for having a defunct web page. If everyone who had > one were required to apologize for it, we'd here an endless echo of "I'm > Sorry!!!" coming out of San Jose. ;-) > > MDC > > > sk wrote: > > Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>: > > > > > ... Go look at all the stuff sitting on AdaPower and > > > elsewhere. ... > > > > ... speaking of which, "The C++ To Ada Translation Page" > > hosted as "http://www.mcondic.com/C-Plus-Plus_Programming.html" > > > > Any chance you could remedy the situation ? > > > > > -- > ====================================================================== > Marin David Condic > I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ > My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm > > Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g > > "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, > live in houses just as big as they can pay for." > > --Logan Pearsall Smith > ====================================================================== > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 19:14 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-06 13:15 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw) You could take the link off of AdaPower. I don't have a web page anymore, so there's no URL to go point to. MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > Is there a URL to get it at right now? if so which is it? I can update > AdaPower :-) > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 18:23 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 19:14 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-05 19:35 ` Jeffrey Carter 2003-10-06 9:46 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-06 16:48 ` Martin Krischik 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2003-10-05 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Not much chance. My original web host went casters up and I had not > bothered to find another one, move the pages or even renew the domain > name. Time being of the essence and other projects being more important, > this one fell on the wayside. Do you still have the file(s)? They could be hosted on AdaPower or AdaWorld. -- Jeff Carter "Go and boil your bottoms." Monty Python & the Holy Grail 01 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 19:35 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2003-10-06 9:46 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-06 13:16 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-06 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --] "Jeffrey Carter" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:ao_fb.2673$Qy2.436@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Marin David Condic wrote: > > Not much chance. My original web host went casters up and I had not > > bothered to find another one, move the pages or even renew the domain > > name. Time being of the essence and other projects being more important, > > this one fell on the wayside. > > Do you still have the file(s)? They could be hosted on AdaPower or AdaWorld. > > -- > Jeff Carter > "Go and boil your bottoms." > Monty Python & the Holy Grail > 01 > Like Jeff said, that can work too. I can host it locally on Ada world, not a problem at all :-). -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 9:46 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-06 13:16 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 14:44 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-06 16:51 ` Martin Krischik 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw) I don't know. It was a few computers ago. I'll poke around and if I find it I might communicate with you about it off line. MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > "Jeffrey Carter" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message > news:ao_fb.2673$Qy2.436@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >>Marin David Condic wrote: >> >>>Not much chance. My original web host went casters up and I had not >>>bothered to find another one, move the pages or even renew the domain >>>name. Time being of the essence and other projects being more important, >>>this one fell on the wayside. >> >>Do you still have the file(s)? They could be hosted on AdaPower or > > AdaWorld. > >>-- >>Jeff Carter >>"Go and boil your bottoms." >>Monty Python & the Holy Grail >>01 >> > > Like Jeff said, that can work too. I can host it locally on Ada world, not > a problem at all :-). > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 13:16 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 14:44 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-06 16:51 ` Martin Krischik 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-06 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1620 bytes --] alrighty, just let me know when and if you find it :-)....let's hope :-) -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F816B37.8080807@noplace.com... > I don't know. It was a few computers ago. I'll poke around and if I find > it I might communicate with you about it off line. > > MDC > > > > Stephane Richard wrote: > > "Jeffrey Carter" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message > > news:ao_fb.2673$Qy2.436@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > >>Marin David Condic wrote: > >> > >>>Not much chance. My original web host went casters up and I had not > >>>bothered to find another one, move the pages or even renew the domain > >>>name. Time being of the essence and other projects being more important, > >>>this one fell on the wayside. > >> > >>Do you still have the file(s)? They could be hosted on AdaPower or > > > > AdaWorld. > > > >>-- > >>Jeff Carter > >>"Go and boil your bottoms." > >>Monty Python & the Holy Grail > >>01 > >> > > > > Like Jeff said, that can work too. I can host it locally on Ada world, not > > a problem at all :-). > > > > > -- > ====================================================================== > Marin David Condic > I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ > My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm > > Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g > > "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, > live in houses just as big as they can pay for." > > --Logan Pearsall Smith > ====================================================================== > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 13:16 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 14:44 ` Stephane Richard @ 2003-10-06 16:51 ` Martin Krischik 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-06 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > I don't know. It was a few computers ago. I'll poke around and if I find > it I might communicate with you about it off line. An yet another good reason to use SourceForge. SourceForge Downloads are mirrored all around the world and will not disapear. With Regards Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net http://www.ada.krischik.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 18:23 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 19:14 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-05 19:35 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2003-10-06 16:48 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-06 23:38 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-06 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Not much chance. My original web host went casters up and I had not > bothered to find another one, move the pages or even renew the domain > name. Time being of the essence and other projects being more important, > this one fell on the wayside. Another good reason to use sourceforge. They are to big to go away without a replacement. With Regards Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net http://www.ada.krischik.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 16:48 ` Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-06 23:38 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw) Yeah, but this wasn't really a "project". It was more a web page with advice on how one thing translates to another thing in a different language. The nutiritional value wasn't that high. Sourceforge would have been overkill. MDC Martin Krischik wrote: > Marin David Condic wrote: > > >>Not much chance. My original web host went casters up and I had not >>bothered to find another one, move the pages or even renew the domain >>name. Time being of the essence and other projects being more important, >>this one fell on the wayside. > > > Another good reason to use sourceforge. They are to big to go away without a > replacement. > > With Regards > > Martin > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 15:25 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 15:51 ` sk @ 2003-10-06 16:42 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-06 23:39 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-06 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > And therein lies the problem. Without some leadership, direction and > *probably* some financial commitment in some form, these all-volunteer > efforts tend to stall, drift and produce little. [cut more elaboration on this] You are right in some respect. However I belive that if there where enough volunteers a critical mass would be reached and the project would not stall any more. Take Pyhon as an example: http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=178 With Regards Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net http://www.ada.krischik.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 16:42 ` Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-06 23:39 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw) If it were big enough, it might not stall. But how do you get it "Big Enough"? It needs some kind of backing/support/endorsement by the Powers That Be in order to get the momentum it needs to be "big enough". MDC Martin Krischik wrote: > > You are right in some respect. However I belive that if there where enough > volunteers a critical mass would be reached and the project would not stall > any more. > > Take Pyhon as an example: > > http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=178 > > With Regards > > Martin -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 0:09 Standard Library Interest? chris 2003-10-05 1:38 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 14:49 ` Martin Krischik @ 2003-10-05 15:02 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 16:43 ` Robert I. Eachus ` (3 more replies) 2003-10-05 23:33 ` Robert C. Leif ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 4 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw) The short form from my response in the other thread... 1) Containers (probably on the way within the standard, but possibly we might find some things not covered...) 2) Math/Statistics - Vectors, Matrices, Big number math, Symbolic algebra, Stats,.... 3) Related to Math: Encryption/Decryption, Compression/Decompression of streams. 4) Control Laws operations 5) OS Interfacing (including file formats) 6) Internet communication protocols 7) Database interface - or even a database itself. 8) XML Document Object Model (one that uses tagged records, please.) 9) Desktop apps 10) GUI interface BTW: You can call me just "Marin" - I use my full name because my first name can confuse people sometimes. MDC chris wrote: > Hi, > > Recent discussions with Marin David Condic /suggest/ the development of -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 15:02 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 16:43 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 18:31 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 17:49 ` Georg Bauhaus ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-05 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > The short form from my response in the other thread... I'm working on statistics packages right now. I'll post here when they are ready for use and comments. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 16:43 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-05 18:31 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 1:58 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw) We worked together to build some stats packages back in another ill-fated effort to get a library going. It was under SIGAda sponsorship, but it eventually disintegrated. Too many players. Too much discussion. No clear objective or mandate from anybody that mattered. Not enough concrete work done. (Is it any wonder I lack confidence in the ability to get this done as a strictly voluntary effort with no "official" sponsorship?) IIRC, our stats stuff was the only "complete" chunk of code to come out of that. Are you basing this latest effort on anything that came from there? MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > I'm working on statistics packages right now. I'll post here when they > are ready for use and comments. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 18:31 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-07 1:58 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-07 12:48 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-07 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > IIRC, our stats stuff was the only "complete" chunk of code to come out > of that. Are you basing this latest effort on anything that came from > there? Actually, I was reorganizing some code I have to compute CDF, PDF, Inverse CDF, and Random Variates for a half-dozen or so distributions so it is all consistant. What do you have? -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 1:58 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-07 12:48 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 20:49 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-07 12:48 UTC (permalink / raw) If you recall, we had some generic packages that did mean, variance, std-dev, skew, curtosis, etc., on arrays of numbers. There were a set of them to do stats on different numeric types. I don't think I've got the original code, but I have a variant of the code that I built in a library of my own. (I think I gave you a copy of that library to look at) It was a while ago - 1997? - and we had been hoping to get some basic stats into what was at the time being called the "Ada Standard Component Library". We had traded this code back & forth quite a bit. Maybe you have a copy of the original effort? MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > > Actually, I was reorganizing some code I have to compute CDF, PDF, > Inverse CDF, and Random Variates for a half-dozen or so distributions so > it is all consistant. What do you have? > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 12:48 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 20:49 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-08 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > If you recall, we had some generic packages that did mean, variance, > std-dev, skew, curtosis, etc., on arrays of numbers. There were a set of > them to do stats on different numeric types. I don't think I've got the > original code, but I have a variant of the code that I built in a > library of my own. (I think I gave you a copy of that library to look at) > > It was a while ago - 1997? - and we had been hoping to get some basic > stats into what was at the time being called the "Ada Standard Component > Library". We had traded this code back & forth quite a bit. Maybe you > have a copy of the original effort? I'll look. It may be on a CD I have of stuff from spectre. Or it may be on a tape I have from my PC at work, that would be a little harder to read. (I have a tape drive on my current PC, but they are not compatible.) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 15:02 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 16:43 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-05 17:49 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-05 18:43 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 19:27 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 7:02 ` Preben Randhol 3 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-05 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote: : : 2) Math/Statistics - Vectors, Matrices, Big number math, Symbolic : algebra, Stats,.... Have you tried the BLAS binding by Duncan Sands? Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 17:49 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-05 18:43 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 23:26 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) I don't like bindings. For most of the things I'd be likely to do in "real work" that involved math, I'd need native Ada source that I could embed. For all the rest of the things I'd likely do that might involve math, I'd merely *want* Ada source I could embed. I refuse to maintain two environments (One to compile some math library and the other to compile the Ada that bound to it. Where does that end?) Also, the fact that libraries exist in no way changes my original request: That there be a *standard* Ada library shipped with most compilers and outside of the ARM so that it can be easily extended. I don't want to go grabbing this piece of code from here, that piece of code from there, some other piece from somewhere else, cobble it all together, hope it compiles and works, deal with inconsistent interfaces, a mixed bag of quality, little/no documentation, mixed bag of support, etc. I want *ONE* consistent library that is relatively common with all Ada compilers. "One Stop Shopping" ought to be the goal along with "It works right out of the box" and "They all look the same." Or I could just go get Java or C++ and utilize whatever I can get from there... :-) MDC Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote: > : > : 2) Math/Statistics - Vectors, Matrices, Big number math, Symbolic > : algebra, Stats,.... > > Have you tried the BLAS binding by Duncan Sands? > > > Georg -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 18:43 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 23:26 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-06 13:27 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-05 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote: : I refuse to maintain two environments (One to : compile some math library and the other to compile the Ada that bound to : it. Where does that end?) In the real world? After all, afaik, most compilers don't run on bare hardware, so having to maintain an OS, using non-Ada system libraries, is not uncommon? As is using and files, and a repository, and compilation options, and cross compilers, and version changes, and so on... So using one or more additional libraries of the BLAS kind might add little more than O(n) complexity, when changes in your Ada setup do not affect your Fortran setup. : request: That there be a *standard* Ada library. In a way, the BLAS is certainly a most venerable "standard", with reference implementation, published theory and source code, and with implementations tuned to a number of processors. Luckily, Ada does have a standard interface to Fortran. BLAS, typically written in Fortran, is well tested and well documented. So, to me, turning it down in favour of a reinvented all Ada solution smells a bit of NIH :-) : "One Stop Shopping" ought to be the goal along with "It : works right out of the box" and "They all look the same." A nice dream, indeed :-) but I think it is more effective to strive for a solution that can be adapted to real world conditions in a standard way, such as is the case with Interfaces.*. Is there more than a limited set of software components that lend themselves well to standard Ada "adapters"? : Or I could just go get Java or C++ and utilize whatever I can get from : there... :-) Gossip notwithstanding, the situation in Java is not that different: What libraries are available, and supported, for Java, _the language_? Containers, I/O, XML, access control, and what else? How about C++, the language? -- Georg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 23:26 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-06 13:27 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 16:58 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > > In the real world? After all, afaik, most compilers don't run on bare > hardware, so having to maintain an OS, using non-Ada system > libraries, is not uncommon? As is using and files, and a repository, > and compilation options, and cross compilers, and version changes, > and so on... So using one or more additional libraries of the BLAS > kind might add little more than O(n) complexity, when changes in your > Ada setup do not affect your Fortran setup. > That's not how its done. At least not in my real world. :-) Selecting a compiler, fitting something into our whole release process and getting code into an embedded processor is an incredibly non-trivial exercise. Saying "O.K. here is some Fortran - go get a suitable Fortran compiler and marry it up with your process & get it into the control..." is a non-starter. (And then we could talk about C libraries, C++ libraries, Java libraries, etc., etc., etc. The answer is "No.") We could toss into the mix any sort of licensing problems if you'd like, but basically it doesn't impact the "Hell No!" answer I'd already get by any significant amount. I can use Ada libraries much more easily - especially if its a compiler-provided package. > : request: That there be a *standard* Ada library. > > In a way, the BLAS is certainly a most venerable "standard", with But its not an *Ada* standard, is it? And then we start down that whole path of "Why bother to use Ada when all the *good* stuff is in some other language???" Why not just use *that* language and discard Ada? That is an unbelievably difficult argument to overcome. > > Gossip notwithstanding, the situation in Java is not that different: > What libraries are available, and supported, for Java, _the > language_? Containers, I/O, XML, access control, and what else? How > about C++, the language? > Saying "Its not part of the language but it comes with the compiler..." is a distinction that falls on deaf ears. Its a difference that makes no difference, so it *is* no difference. If I get it with the compiler, its indistinguishable from the language. Hence, Ada ought to be ready to play that game and provide a really huge library of really cool stuff that everyone would just assume was part of Ada. Why fight it? Use it! MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 13:27 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 16:58 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-11 9:55 ` Martin Dowie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-10 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Georg Bauhaus wrote: > > > > In the real world? After all, afaik, most compilers don't run on bare > > hardware, so having to maintain an OS, using non-Ada system > > libraries, is not uncommon? As is using and files, and a repository, > > and compilation options, and cross compilers, and version changes, > > and so on... So using one or more additional libraries of the BLAS > > kind might add little more than O(n) complexity, when changes in your > > Ada setup do not affect your Fortran setup. > > That's not how its done. At least not in my real world. :-) Selecting a > compiler, fitting something into our whole release process and getting > code into an embedded processor is an incredibly non-trivial exercise. > Saying "O.K. here is some Fortran - go get a suitable Fortran compiler > and marry it up with your process & get it into the control..." is a > non-starter. (And then we could talk about C libraries, C++ libraries, > Java libraries, etc., etc., etc. The answer is "No.") We could toss into > the mix any sort of licensing problems if you'd like, but basically it > doesn't impact the "Hell No!" answer I'd already get by any significant > amount. > > I can use Ada libraries much more easily - especially if its a > compiler-provided package. And one such way to get it there, is to write/mangle packages to work with GNAT in a "ready to go" fashion (partly to help ourselves, partly to help ACT, who are helping us). If we do this successfully, then ACT's competitors will want to port the GNAT library to work with their version of the compiler. In effect, this will simply happen as a natural result of an initial and ongoing effort. What will be key here(!), is to license the sources in such a way that they can do this, without involving lawyers. If the lawyers have to get involved, then you may never see the light of day from the vendors on this. Since this is a difficult area, I think you'll need to segment the naming space such that this is easy to subdivide. For example, GPL'd code could fall into a GPL.* and/or GPL2.* hierarching, while public domain stuff could be under a PD.* hierarchy. Warren. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 16:58 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-11 9:55 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-15 16:51 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-11 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw) "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:LyBhb.12984$fP6.401050@news20.bellglobal.com... > If we do this successfully, then ACT's competitors will want to > port the GNAT library to work with their version of the compiler. > In effect, this will simply happen as a natural result of an > initial and ongoing effort. I've already started a port for ObjectAda @ https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnat4oa/ I really should update it with the stuff on my laptop! :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 9:55 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-15 16:51 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-16 12:14 ` Martin Dowie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-15 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw) Martin Dowie wrote: > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message > news:LyBhb.12984$fP6.401050@news20.bellglobal.com... > >>If we do this successfully, then ACT's competitors will want to >>port the GNAT library to work with their version of the compiler. >>In effect, this will simply happen as a natural result of an >>initial and ongoing effort. > > > I've already started a port for ObjectAda @ > https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnat4oa/ > > I really should update it with the stuff on my laptop! :-) Very good ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-15 16:51 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-16 12:14 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-22 16:48 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-16 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw) "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:PVejb.7451$PM2.793831@news20.bellglobal.com... > > I've already started a port for ObjectAda @ > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnat4oa/ > > > > I really should update it with the stuff on my laptop! :-) > > Very good ;-) Thanks - the name is slightly mislead, as I hope the implementation will be portable to other compilers, e.g. Janus or the one that Nick Roberts says he's writing ;-) I don't have access to anything other than 2 flavours of Windows, so if anyone wants to join up with a VMS or Linux port that would be great! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-16 12:14 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-22 16:48 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG @ 2003-10-22 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) Martin Dowie wrote: > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message > news:PVejb.7451$PM2.793831@news20.bellglobal.com... >>>I've already started a port for ObjectAda @ >>>https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnat4oa/ >>> >>>I really should update it with the stuff on my laptop! :-) >>Very good ;-) > > Thanks - the name is slightly mislead, as I hope the implementation > will be portable to other compilers, e.g. Janus or the one that Nick > Roberts says he's writing ;-) > > I don't have access to anything other than 2 flavours of Windows, > so if anyone wants to join up with a VMS or Linux port that would > be great! Even if I had access to a different Ada compiler flavour under Linux, I currently have more projects than I have time to handle at the moment. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 15:02 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 16:43 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 17:49 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-05 19:27 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 13:33 ` Marin David Condic ` (2 more replies) 2003-10-06 7:02 ` Preben Randhol 3 siblings, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-05 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F803278.1020507@noplace.com... > The short form from my response in the other thread... > > 1) Containers (probably on the way within the standard, but possibly we > might find some things not covered...) AI-302 http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-10302.TXT > 2) Math/Statistics - Vectors, Matrices, Big number math, Symbolic > algebra, Stats,.... AI-294 http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00296.TXT and http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00346.TXT > 3) Related to Math: Encryption/Decryption, Compression/Decompression of > streams. > > 4) Control Laws operations Nothing yet! > 5) OS Interfacing (including file formats) AI-248 - http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00248.TXT > 6) Internet communication protocols > > 7) Database interface - or even a database itself. > > 8) XML Document Object Model (one that uses tagged records, please.) See APIWG http://www.acm.org/sigada/wg/apiwg/ > 9) Desktop apps > > 10) GUI interface See <insert favourite GUI API here> - can't see these in any version of Ada RM ever though ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 19:27 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-06 13:33 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 17:16 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 16:47 ` chris 2003-10-07 2:13 ` Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw) I appreciate that there are plans to include stuff in the standard. Are you going to provide a means by which it can be extended on a regular basis? I can keep coming up with good ideas. I might even be willing to help make them real. Is there a way to get them into most implementations (or even my *own* implementation? By which I mean I can extend the library with my own personal stuff) without waiting 10 years? Are they children of the package Ada - and hence I'm not allowed to modify or extend them in any way? (Or is that rule changing?) Is it going to be a "reference implementation" that is released regularly or is it "every vendor for himself?" Will it be in source code so I can modify it if I don't like what it does? There's more to it than simply saying "we're adding some stuff to the ARM..." I still think it is the entirely *wrong* answer to cast this stuff into the concrete of the ARM - at least on its first pass through. Let the ARM pick it up in the next revision if it proves stable. But get a process set up to have an extensible library that can react quickly outside the ARM. MDC Martin Dowie wrote: > "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message > news:3F803278.1020507@noplace.com... > >>The short form from my response in the other thread... >> >>1) Containers (probably on the way within the standard, but possibly we >>might find some things not covered...) > > > AI-302 http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-10302.TXT > > > >>2) Math/Statistics - Vectors, Matrices, Big number math, Symbolic >>algebra, Stats,.... > > > AI-294 http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00296.TXT > and http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00346.TXT > > > >>3) Related to Math: Encryption/Decryption, Compression/Decompression of >>streams. >> >>4) Control Laws operations > > > Nothing yet! > > >>5) OS Interfacing (including file formats) > > > AI-248 - http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00248.TXT > > > >>6) Internet communication protocols >> >>7) Database interface - or even a database itself. >> >>8) XML Document Object Model (one that uses tagged records, please.) > > > See APIWG http://www.acm.org/sigada/wg/apiwg/ > > > >>9) Desktop apps >> >>10) GUI interface > > > See <insert favourite GUI API here> - can't see these in any version of Ada > RM ever though > > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 13:33 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 17:16 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 23:45 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-06 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F816F2F.1010407@noplace.com... > I appreciate that there are plans to include stuff in the standard. Are > you going to provide a means by which it can be extended on a regular > basis? I can keep coming up with good ideas. I might even be willing to > help make them real. Is there a way to get them into most > implementations (or even my *own* implementation? By which I mean I can > extend the library with my own personal stuff) without waiting 10 years? I guess they will only form part of each RM every 10 years or so, but that doesn't mean the APIWG could provide some sort of "official status" to an API at any time in between. The problem with API developments is (apparently) getting them defined in RM-eze. > Are they children of the package Ada - and hence I'm not allowed to > modify or extend them in any way? (Or is that rule changing?) Is it > going to be a "reference implementation" that is released regularly or > is it "every vendor for himself?" Will it be in source code so I can > modify it if I don't like what it does? I think the rule has always been you can't add children to package Ada *in normal mode* but you can add grandchildren to existing packages, seemingly at will! At least in GNAT & ObjectAda it is easy. I make use of this by adding non-standard but portable (for me :-) extensions to say Ada.Calendar to add I/O. Again, for packages that don't require compiler 'magic', it would be nice for the APIWG to maintain a single reference implementation. I've got a Win32 ref-imp for AI-248 @ my web site and I'm doing a vanilla Ada one for AI-296. But note that the status of these 2 are very different. 248 is about one step away from being formally adopted to ISO approval but 296 is still a "work item" - neither may yet get in! > There's more to it than simply saying "we're adding some stuff to the > ARM..." I still think it is the entirely *wrong* answer to cast this > stuff into the concrete of the ARM - at least on its first pass through. > Let the ARM pick it up in the next revision if it proves stable. But get > a process set up to have an extensible library that can react quickly > outside the ARM. Again, I'd like the APIWG to do this and we should be all signing up for this asap and being *active*. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 17:16 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-06 23:45 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw) But therein lies two problems: One is that for something to meet "acceptable" criteria for the ARM, it has to have behavior detailed in painstaking language that makes it verifiable. (A reference implementation does not) The other is that the APIWG contains in its name "API". They'd only be spelling out an "Interface" (in painstaking detail) and its "Every Man For Himself" - which creates a barrier to getting it done. I still think a "Conventional" library that might migrate parts to the ARM eventually would be a good thing. A reference implementation provides near instant access for the vendor with little effort to support it. If they've got to build a thing from bottom-dead-center and test it against a validation suite, it won't get done. At least not to the extent it ought to be done. Some middle ground must exist.... MDC Martin Dowie wrote: > > I guess they will only form part of each RM every 10 years or so, but > that doesn't mean the APIWG could provide some sort of "official > status" to an API at any time in between. > > The problem with API developments is (apparently) getting them > defined in RM-eze. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 19:27 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 13:33 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 16:47 ` chris 2003-10-06 19:03 ` sk 2003-10-07 2:13 ` Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: chris @ 2003-10-06 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Martin Dowie wrote: > "Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message >>1) Containers (probably on the way within the standard, but possibly we >>might find some things not covered...) >>2) Math/Statistics - Vectors, Matrices, Big number math, Symbolic >>algebra, Stats,.... >>5) OS Interfacing (including file formats) So is this a list of what is likely to be in the standard then? IIRC there's an implementation *relating to* the OS interfacing component somewhere, right? AdaDirectories or something? >>7) Database interface - or even a database itself. And this might make it? >>6) Internet communication protocols >>8) XML Document Object Model (one that uses tagged records, please.) > See APIWG http://www.acm.org/sigada/wg/apiwg/ These don't fit because they're rapidly evolving, though we will get a sockets api? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 16:47 ` chris @ 2003-10-06 19:03 ` sk 2003-10-06 20:18 ` chris 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: sk @ 2003-10-06 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>: > IIRC there's an implementation *relating to* the OS > interfacing component somewhere, right? AdaDirectories > or something? More than just Ada.Directories, there are the POSIX bindings ! I am not sure the current state of the POSIX bindings, nor have I looked at them, but that is where I would look if I wanted a complete (or as near as) interface to the OS. -- ------------------------------------------------- -- Merge vertically for real address -- -- s n p @ t . o -- k i e k c c m ------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 19:03 ` sk @ 2003-10-06 20:18 ` chris 2003-10-06 21:13 ` sk 2003-10-07 0:30 ` Mark Lorenzen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: chris @ 2003-10-06 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw) sk wrote: > chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>: > > > IIRC there's an implementation *relating to* the OS > > interfacing component somewhere, right? AdaDirectories > > or something? > > More than just Ada.Directories, there are the POSIX > bindings ! I know about them but don't use them... Out of interest, what does posix give a programmer besides directory control that Ada doesn't provide out of the box? My understanding of posix is that it was defined to provide an api the lowest common functionality common to the two big Unices of the day, but other than that I haven't explored it in detail. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 20:18 ` chris @ 2003-10-06 21:13 ` sk 2003-10-20 3:22 ` Dave Thompson 2003-10-07 0:30 ` Mark Lorenzen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: sk @ 2003-10-06 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>: > ... snip ... POSIX - Portable Operating System Interface (http://www.pasc.org/#POSIX) -- Sounds good, but like all these "standards" (IEEE,ISO etc) and organizations, mind-numbingly expensive for casual use. http://standards.ieee.org/catalog/olis/licenses/licenses.html -- Related to Ada ... http://archive.adaic.com/tools/bindings/bindings95/html/section4.html -- ------------------------------------------------- -- Merge vertically for real address -- -- s n p @ t . o -- k i e k c c m ------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 21:13 ` sk @ 2003-10-20 3:22 ` Dave Thompson 2003-10-20 10:29 ` sk 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Dave Thompson @ 2003-10-20 3:22 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:13:47 -0500, sk <noname@myob.com> wrote: > chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>: > > ... snip ... > > POSIX - Portable Operating System Interface > (http://www.pasc.org/#POSIX) > > -- > > Sounds good, but like all these "standards" (IEEE,ISO etc) > and organizations, mind-numbingly expensive for casual > use. > > http://standards.ieee.org/catalog/olis/licenses/licenses.html > No longer. As of 2002, ISO 9945 is converged with SUS v3, and available free (with registration) at http://www.unix.org/version3 . More info and links at http://www.opengroup.org/austin/ . - David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-20 3:22 ` Dave Thompson @ 2003-10-20 10:29 ` sk 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: sk @ 2003-10-20 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Dave Thompson <david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net>: > No longer. As of 2002, ISO 9945 is converged with SUS v3, and > available free (with registration) at http://www.unix.org/version3 . > More info and links at http://www.opengroup.org/austin/ . Ah-ha ! Thanks. -- ------------------------------------------------- -- Merge vertically for real address -- -- s n p @ t . o -- k i e k c c m ------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 20:18 ` chris 2003-10-06 21:13 ` sk @ 2003-10-07 0:30 ` Mark Lorenzen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Mark Lorenzen @ 2003-10-07 0:30 UTC (permalink / raw) chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> writes: > sk wrote: >> chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>: >> > IIRC there's an implementation *relating to* the OS >> > interfacing component somewhere, right? AdaDirectories >> > or something? >> More than just Ada.Directories, there are the POSIX >> bindings ! > > I know about them but don't use them... Out of interest, what does > posix give a programmer besides directory control that Ada doesn't > provide out of the box? > I wonder if I am reading your question correct... There is *a lot* more to POSIX than what is supported out-of-the-box in Ada! Think of all the typical "things" you associate with a Unix system: Processes, signals, sockets, message queues, shared memory, user accounts, terminals, file locking, memory locking, memory mapping, file permissions, event handling, process group leader, controlling terminal, job control, session control etc. The Ada standard does (of course) not define any means of handling these "things". > My understanding of posix is that it was defined to provide an api the > lowest common functionality common to the two big Unices of the day, > but other than that I haven't explored it in detail. I would not say the "lowest common functionality". It is a pretty large part of The Open Group's definition of Unix. If you want to do some serious development for the Unix platform, then POSIX is an absolute necessity. - Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 19:27 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 13:33 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 16:47 ` chris @ 2003-10-07 2:13 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-07 22:49 ` Georg Bauhaus 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-07 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw) Martin Dowie wrote: >>2) Math/Statistics - Vectors, Matrices, Big number math, Symbolic >>algebra, Stats,.... ... > and http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00346.TXT Look at the somewhat humerous (at least I thought so) discussion we had on quintic roots with real coefficients to see just how hard this standards stuff is. The note I posted on BLAS is also worth reading. A good binding to BLAS as part of the standard would mean that users shouldn't have to find a Fortran compiler, run ATLAS on their target hardware, and create the BLAS libraries in Fortran. Just install the "right" version of the math library for your target hardware and go. (Or perhaps use library pragmas.) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 2:13 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-07 22:49 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-08 20:58 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-07 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote: : : The note I posted on BLAS is also worth reading. A good binding to BLAS : as part of the standard would mean that users shouldn't have to find a : Fortran compiler, run ATLAS on their target hardware, and create the : BLAS libraries in Fortran. Just install the "right" version of the math : library for your target hardware and go. (Or perhaps use library pragmas.) How about this one: http://topo.math.u-psud.fr/~sands/Programs/BLAS/index.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 22:49 ` Georg Bauhaus @ 2003-10-08 20:58 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 12:57 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-08 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Robert I. Eachus <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote: > : > : The note I posted on BLAS is also worth reading. A good binding to BLAS > : as part of the standard would mean that users shouldn't have to find a > : Fortran compiler, run ATLAS on their target hardware, and create the > : BLAS libraries in Fortran. Just install the "right" version of the math > : library for your target hardware and go. (Or perhaps use library pragmas.) > > How about this one: > http://topo.math.u-psud.fr/~sands/Programs/BLAS/index.html It is a start, but only a start. It is a thin binding to an assumed Fortran implementation of the BLAS. I could get into a long argument about whether or not to use "native" Ada arrays. (Since BLAS routines often have a transposition parameter, you can map a normal Ada array as a transposed Fortran array and vice-versa. But this might confuse users.) But much more important is to go from "here is a BLAS binding" to "Ada compilers provide the BLAS libraries," and users don't have to compile the Fortran, or worry about finding (or creating) and binding in a BLAS implementation. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 20:58 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-09 12:57 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 3:09 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-09 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Absolutely! Yeah Verrily! Amen! If Ada doesn't provide it then why use Ada? Saying "Here's a binding..." is just saying "Me too!!!" without really providing a one-stop shopping experience to the customer or offering anything more than what the other guy has. It means "Go get yourself a Fortran compiler as well as an Ada compiler..." and the end user starts wondering why bother with Ada when it is really Fortran (or C or C++ or Java) that is giving him all the *real* functionality he needs. It means you're always one step behind the guy who you're binding to - he keeps offering something new and you have to lag behind adding the binding after the native-language speakers have already got it. If Ada wants some kind of math library and "BLAS" is the math library to have, then Ada ought to implement BLAS - and maybe even take it in new directions providing *more* value to the end user. (I believe the term is "Embrace and Extend" ;-) Otherwise the BLAS afficianados don't have much reason to select Ada as their language of implementation. MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > users.) But much more important is to go from "here is a BLAS binding" > to "Ada compilers provide the BLAS libraries," and users don't have to > compile the Fortran, or worry about finding (or creating) and binding in > a BLAS implementation. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 12:57 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 3:09 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 3:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Absolutely! Yeah Verrily! Amen! > If Ada wants some kind of math library and "BLAS" is the math library to > have, then Ada ought to implement BLAS - and maybe even take it in new > directions providing *more* value to the end user. (I believe the term > is "Embrace and Extend" ;-) Otherwise the BLAS afficianados don't have > much reason to select Ada as their language of implementation. No, I don't want anyone to rewrite BLAS in Ada. There should be a "thick" binding on top of the BLAS libraries so that the users never have to deal with the idiosyncracies of Fortran. But converting the libraries to Adatran wouldn't accomplish anything other than to waste money. As long as the vendors provide a good BLAS implementation (probably built by ATLAS) or in the case of GNAT, possibly tell you how to build a tuned version for your system as a part of building GNAT, then the user need never to know how to invoke the Fortran compiler. (And the Ada binding will probably include any necessary linker directives.) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 15:02 ` Marin David Condic ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-10-05 19:27 ` Martin Dowie @ 2003-10-06 7:02 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-06 13:37 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 13:50 ` (see below) 3 siblings, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-06 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2003-10-05, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote: > The short form from my response in the other thread... The current state is that we have: (I'm just putting in what I can remember so others can fill in the blanks and add alternatives) > 1) Containers (probably on the way within the standard, but possibly we > might find some things not covered...) Charles SAL > 2) Math/Statistics - Vectors, Matrices, Big number math, Symbolic > algebra, Stats,.... > > 3) Related to Math: Encryption/Decryption, Compression/Decompression of > streams. Compression/Decomression there is a zlib binding and zip if I remember correctly. However if they work on streams I don't know. Files at least. > 4) Control Laws operations What is this? > 5) OS Interfacing (including file formats) and config files. > 6) Internet communication protocols AWS Libra > 7) Database interface - or even a database itself. Gnade APQ > 8) XML Document Object Model (one that uses tagged records, please.) AdaXML (yes I know) > 9) Desktop apps What do you mean with desktop apps in a standard library? Anyway I'm going to finish my work on a template for making GUIs (GtkAda) for applications later this year. > 10) GUI interface GtkAda 11) Multimedia - sound and images However, I think the way to go is not to try to make a standard library containing all these things at once. I think the most impostant areas to cover are the Container, Math, OS interfacing and possibly some of the internet communication protocols. Another important thing is that the code needs to be available so others can take over if needed. Preben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 7:02 ` Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-06 13:37 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 14:34 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-06 19:37 ` tmoran 2003-10-06 13:50 ` (see below) 1 sibling, 2 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw) This is really important: I absolutely *never* said there weren't package out there that can do some/most/all of these things. What I said was that they are NOT "STANDARD" and a bunch of other undesirable characteristics. If there was a willingness to adopt some of these things and declare thenm to be "The Ada Thing", I wouldn't oppose that. I just think we're better off making sure we had a consistent, well documented, common, standard library. MDC Preben Randhol wrote: > On 2003-10-05, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote: > >>The short form from my response in the other thread... > > > The current state is that we have: > (I'm just putting in what I can remember so others can fill in the > blanks and add alternatives) > > >>1) Containers (probably on the way within the standard, but possibly we >>might find some things not covered...) > > > Charles > SAL > > >>2) Math/Statistics - Vectors, Matrices, Big number math, Symbolic >>algebra, Stats,.... >> >>3) Related to Math: Encryption/Decryption, Compression/Decompression of >>streams. > > > Compression/Decomression there is a zlib binding and zip if I remember > correctly. However if they work on streams I don't know. Files at least. > > >>4) Control Laws operations > > > What is this? > > >>5) OS Interfacing (including file formats) > > > and config files. > > >>6) Internet communication protocols > > > AWS > Libra > > >>7) Database interface - or even a database itself. > > > Gnade > APQ > > >>8) XML Document Object Model (one that uses tagged records, please.) > > > AdaXML (yes I know) > > >>9) Desktop apps > > > What do you mean with desktop apps in a standard library? Anyway I'm > going to finish my work on a template for making GUIs (GtkAda) for > applications later this year. > > >>10) GUI interface > > > GtkAda > > 11) Multimedia - sound and images > > However, I think the way to go is not to try to make a standard library > containing all these things at once. I think the most impostant areas to > cover are the Container, Math, OS interfacing and possibly some of the > internet communication protocols. > > Another important thing is that the code needs to be available so others > can take over if needed. > > Preben -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 13:37 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 14:34 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-06 23:50 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 19:37 ` tmoran 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-06 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2003-10-06, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote: > This is really important: I absolutely *never* said there weren't > package out there that can do some/most/all of these things. What I said > was that they are NOT "STANDARD" and a bunch of other undesirable > characteristics. If there was a willingness to adopt some of these > things and declare thenm to be "The Ada Thing", I wouldn't oppose that. > I just think we're better off making sure we had a consistent, well > documented, common, standard library. Sure, but I think that these are at least starting points. I don't see the reason for rewriting a lot of software just for the exercise if one can adopt already existing software and mould it into what one wants. At any rate the GNAT stuff is more or less standard for me. Preben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 14:34 ` Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-06 23:50 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 8:55 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Great. I agree that existing packages might make a good place to start looking at things that should be there. It might even make a great place to start with a reference implementation. Two things: I'd like a standard, consistent, built-on-common-substrate, orthogonal library and grabbing a dozen different things off the Internet probably isn't going to do that. I'd also like to see you get some kind of acceptance by the folks that matter that they are going to use some stuff currently available off the Internet. Chances are they won't buy it. I'm not against existing software. I just think its hard to pull existing stuff together into a consistent library without significant rework and history tends to indicate that it won't get accepted. Solve those problems and you've got something there. MDC Preben Randhol wrote: > > > Sure, but I think that these are at least starting points. I don't see > the reason for rewriting a lot of software just for the exercise if one > can adopt already existing software and mould it into what one wants. > > At any rate the GNAT stuff is more or less standard for me. > > Preben -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 23:50 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-07 8:55 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-07 13:05 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-07 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2003-10-06, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote: > Great. I agree that existing packages might make a good place to start > looking at things that should be there. It might even make a great place > to start with a reference implementation. Two things: I'd like a > standard, consistent, built-on-common-substrate, orthogonal library and > grabbing a dozen different things off the Internet probably isn't going > to do that. I'd also like to see you get some kind of acceptance by the > folks that matter that they are going to use some stuff currently > available off the Internet. Chances are they won't buy it. Well it depends whoes your audience. Buy? Preben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 8:55 ` Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-07 13:05 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-07 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw) That depends on who it is that declares "This Is The Conventional Ada Library". In my mind, that's got to include the endorsement of the ARG and the vendors in order for it to have any meaning. Pull a bunch of stuff off the Internet, put it on a floppy, send it to the ARG and say "This is what I think should be the Conventional Ada Library." My guess would be that the answer would end up being "No". There would be lots of reasons to say "No" and I understand most of them. It would be my answer too if I were in their position. That's my guess as to what the outcome would be. Why? Simple: If they wanted there to be a Conventional Ada Library made up of random bits of code sucked down off of the Internet, they could have done that by now. The vendors have had the Booch Components and a bunch of other container libraries available for years. At any given moment, they could have plopped it down on their distribution disks and said "This Is The Thing." Since it hasn't happened, I'm betting it won't. MDC Preben Randhol wrote: > > > Well it depends whoes your audience. Buy? > > Preben -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 13:37 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 14:34 ` Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-06 19:37 ` tmoran 2003-10-06 23:57 ` Marin David Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2003-10-06 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>2) Math/Statistics - Vectors, Matrices, Big number math, Symbolic >>>algebra, Stats,.... Ten years or so ago my compiler vendor (RR Software) sent a library and (paper) manual "NAG Small Computer Systems Ada Library". It was pretty basic, but did other vendors also deliver it? Who paid for it and why wasn't it expanded? >>>5) OS Interfacing (including file formats) >>>6) Internet communication protocols >>>10) GUI interface >> 11) Multimedia - sound and images Claw has several of these, and several have been posted to www.adapower.com, including non-Claw versions of SMTP, FTP, and HTTP. >This is really important: I absolutely *never* said there weren't >package out there that can do some/most/all of these things. What I said >was that they are NOT "STANDARD" and a bunch of other undesirable >characteristics. If there was a willingness to adopt some of these So this is not a programming problem, it's a political/economic problem of getting someone to advertise (ie, send out with copies of their compiler), ship, and support a common library. The question then becomes "what's in it for them". I think there may be some confusion in this thread on the point of which problem you are trying to solve. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 19:37 ` tmoran @ 2003-10-06 23:57 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 21:46 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw) It always has been and always will be a "Political Problem". We've known for aeons how to make a square root routine. Getting one that could be accepted as "Standard" was a political problem. Just because its "political" doesn't make it any less a "problem", so we need to find the "political" will to do it. From there, the technology is relatively simple. MDC tmoran@acm.org wrote: > > So this is not a programming problem, it's a political/economic problem > of getting someone to advertise (ie, send out with copies of their > compiler), ship, and support a common library. The question then becomes > "what's in it for them". I think there may be some confusion in this > thread on the point of which problem you are trying to solve. -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 23:57 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-08 21:46 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 8:10 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-08 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > It always has been and always will be a "Political Problem". We've known > for aeons how to make a square root routine. Getting one that could be > accepted as "Standard" was a political problem. Just because its > "political" doesn't make it any less a "problem", so we need to find the > "political" will to do it. From there, the technology is relatively simple. I don't want to harp on this, but WHO has known how to make a square root routine for aeons? In the early sixties it was vital to NASA to do square roots fast and accurately for the Apollo project. I worked on this, and the eventual result was to modify four IBM 7094s to include a 36-bit to 36-bit integer square-root function. I won't go into a long discussion of WHY a 36-bit to 36-bit square-root with the implicit binary point to the right of the most significant digit was what was needed. Just the thought of explaining to ONE more person why that was what was needed, and that it was a very simple modification of the IBM 7094 to add it makes me want to scream. In the mid-eighties when I was at Stratus, I showed the same thing to the hardware engineers responsible for the math co-processor software in the Stratus 200 and 600 series. They agreed it would significantly improve the speed of their square root routines, but AFAIK, it was never implemented. (This was when we were about to introduce the 2000 series which used Motorola 68881 math co-processors.) Later, I implemented this square-root method in software for Sun SPARCs, since it was so much faster than Sun's math routines for most SPARC chips. (Most UltraSPARC chips now seem to do the square-root correctly.) So yes, I know how to use the Newton-Rhapson method to find square roots, and I also know how to implement a square-root in microcode so that it is faster than the hardware divide. But the idea that this was well or widely known in 1983 is totally false. There were CPUs in the nineties that still did it wrong. (Of course, in the nineties Intel managed to get divide wrong as well. Sigh!) Most implementations of sine and cosine were pretty good, but other trig functions and all inverses were spotty. Logs again were spotty both natural and common logs, and most implementations of exp were a horror. Brian Wichmann did a lot of work on that, including finding cases where many compilers computed X**4 wrong, even when X was integer and the result was therefore exact. (The IBM 360 series and follow-ons were infamous for printing the sum of 2.0 and 2.0 as 3.9999999999999... But that was actually a problem in the Fortran print routines, not in the internal representation.) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 21:46 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-09 8:10 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2003-10-10 2:29 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 9:20 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2003-10-09 13:09 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen @ 2003-10-09 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw) OK, I'll bite. What's wrong with Cody-Waite? (W.J. Cody and W. Waite, Software manual for the elementary functions, Prentice Hall, 1980). >>>>> "RIE" == Robert I Eachus <rieachus@comcast.net> writes: RIE> Marin David Condic wrote: >> It always has been and always will be a "Political Problem". We've >> known for aeons how to make a square root routine. Getting one that >> could be accepted as "Standard" was a political problem. Just >> because its "political" doesn't make it any less a "problem", so we >> need to find the "political" will to do it. From there, the >> technology is relatively simple. RIE> I don't want to harp on this, but WHO has known how to make a square RIE> root routine for aeons? In the early sixties it was vital to NASA to RIE> do square roots fast and accurately for the Apollo project. I worked RIE> on this, and the eventual result was to modify four IBM 7094s to RIE> include a 36-bit to 36-bit integer square-root function. I won't go RIE> into a long discussion of WHY a 36-bit to 36-bit square-root with the RIE> implicit binary point to the right of the most significant digit was RIE> what was needed. Just the thought of explaining to ONE more person RIE> why that was what was needed, and that it was a very simple RIE> modification of the IBM 7094 to add it makes me want to scream. <snip> RIE> So yes, I know how to use the Newton-Rhapson method to find square RIE> roots, and I also know how to implement a square-root in microcode so RIE> that it is faster than the hardware divide. But the idea that this RIE> was well or widely known in 1983 is totally false. There were CPUs in RIE> the nineties that still did it wrong. (Of course, in the nineties <snip> -- Sun Microsystems cannot have these opinions even if they wanted to. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 8:10 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen @ 2003-10-10 2:29 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 2:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: > OK, I'll bite. What's wrong with Cody-Waite? Nothing, they were both members of NumWG/NRG that developed the Ada numerics standards. > (W.J. Cody and W. Waite, Software manual for the elementary functions, > Prentice Hall, 1980). Oh, that Cody and Waite. Same people, but I think you have to realize that the Prentice Hall book was at best a working draft for the over 10 years of work that ended up in the DIS. And remember the timing. The Cody and Waite book was published about the same time as Mil Std 1815 (Ada 80) which was the basis for ANSI/Mil-Std 1815A (Ada 83). Adding Cody and Waite to the draft standard, as I said was not done, because all the Bills involved Cody, Waite, and Wittaker, (and Bob Mathis) knew how much more work was needed. See if you can find a copy of "Proposed Standard for a Generic Package of Elementary Functions for Ada," Ada Letters - A Special Edition from SIGAda, Volume XI, Number 7, Fall 1991. (There are actually four draft NRG standards in there, including the complex versions, with complete generic implementations. There are a couple of typos, and I think one of the names was changed in the final standard, but the code is all good.) If you can find it, burn your copy of Cody and Waite. Otherwise it is better than nothing. (Actually I prefer Abramowitz, M., and Stegun, I. A., Eds. Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1972 for completeness, and the Ada Letters Special Edition for the reference implementations of the functions that are provided.) Seriously, if I sat down and looked through the original Cody and Waite book, I don't think I would find a single function that wasn't significantly improved in both performance and accuracy, usually several times over the next ten years. As for the square root in particular, there are two basic algorithms. One is to use the N-R approach which doubles accuracy at each step with a good starting guess. But in requires a divide at each iteration, and, on modern CPUs, divides are slow. The algorithm you may have learned in school (in decimal) works very nicely in binary with only additions, subtractions, compares and shifts. Since it uses two-bits at each step in binary, you can often write a machine code version that is faster than hardware division. But don't bother, except for very special uses, such as arbitrary precision arithmetic. The computer you use, unless it is ancient, should have this algorithm in microcode as part of the IEEE floating point functions. If I thought it was worth writing the code today, I'd show you the tricks that speed up the code. (Basically you want to do compare, adjust, then subtract.) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 21:46 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 8:10 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen @ 2003-10-09 9:20 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2003-10-09 13:09 ` Marin David Condic 2 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2003-10-09 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:46:52 GMT, "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote: >Marin David Condic wrote: >> It always has been and always will be a "Political Problem". We've known >> for aeons how to make a square root routine. Getting one that could be >> accepted as "Standard" was a political problem. Just because its >> "political" doesn't make it any less a "problem", so we need to find the >> "political" will to do it. From there, the technology is relatively simple. > >I don't want to harp on this, but WHO has known how to make a square >root routine for aeons? In the early sixties it was vital to NASA to do > square roots fast and accurately for the Apollo project. I worked on >this, and the eventual result was to modify four IBM 7094s to include a >36-bit to 36-bit integer square-root function. I won't go into a long >discussion of WHY a 36-bit to 36-bit square-root with the implicit >binary point to the right of the most significant digit was what was >needed. Just the thought of explaining to ONE more person why that was >what was needed, and that it was a very simple modification of the IBM >7094 to add it makes me want to scream. > >In the mid-eighties when I was at Stratus, I showed the same thing to >the hardware engineers responsible for the math co-processor software in >the Stratus 200 and 600 series. They agreed it would significantly >improve the speed of their square root routines, but AFAIK, it was never >implemented. (This was when we were about to introduce the 2000 series >which used Motorola 68881 math co-processors.) Later, I implemented >this square-root method in software for Sun SPARCs, since it was so much >faster than Sun's math routines for most SPARC chips. (Most UltraSPARC >chips now seem to do the square-root correctly.) > >So yes, I know how to use the Newton-Rhapson method to find square >roots, and I also know how to implement a square-root in microcode so >that it is faster than the hardware divide. But the idea that this was >well or widely known in 1983 is totally false. There were CPUs in the >nineties that still did it wrong. (Of course, in the nineties Intel >managed to get divide wrong as well. Sigh!) Most implementations of >sine and cosine were pretty good, but other trig functions and all >inverses were spotty. Logs again were spotty both natural and common >logs, and most implementations of exp were a horror. Brian Wichmann did >a lot of work on that, including finding cases where many compilers >computed X**4 wrong, even when X was integer and the result was >therefore exact. (The IBM 360 series and follow-ons were infamous for >printing the sum of 2.0 and 2.0 as 3.9999999999999... But that was >actually a problem in the Fortran print routines, not in the internal >representation.) Hear! Hear! I remember, an excellent book on numerical methods (Forsyte's, I believe) in early 80s, which started with a square root equation and showed how difficult in fact to solve such an "elementary" thing properly. That time there was no numerical library which had a decent subprogram for that. --- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-08 21:46 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 8:10 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2003-10-09 9:20 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2003-10-09 13:09 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 14:44 ` Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-09 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Now you're talking about having a *Good* square root routine. Your "political position" is that before we can define "Sqrt (X)" we have to know how to make a *good* one. My "political position" is that Fortran had a "Sqrt (X)" that was "good enough" for me to get my work done and that while someone is off defining a better way of computing the result, my code could still be making reference to an interface that looked like "Sqrt (X)" and when the better one comes along, I don't have to change my code because they decided to call it "Square_Root (X)" instead. So you see, that there are *always* "Political Problems" here - finding a reasonable compromise between two or more people's desires and objectives. You wanted mathematical certainty. I wanted interface stability. Someone else probably had other objectives that might or might not have been met. We see the same thing here when discussing a standard library. Some folks want it to be in the ARM. Some want it to be informal. Some want it to be built by assembling existing code. Others want it to be a ground-up effort. There's a million possible ways to go and solving that is a political problem. MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > > I don't want to harp on this, but WHO has known how to make a square > root routine for aeons? In the early sixties it was vital to NASA to do > square roots fast and accurately for the Apollo project. I worked on > this, and the eventual result was to modify four IBM 7094s to include a > 36-bit to 36-bit integer square-root function. I won't go into a long > discussion of WHY a 36-bit to 36-bit square-root with the implicit > binary point to the right of the most significant digit was what was > needed. Just the thought of explaining to ONE more person why that was > what was needed, and that it was a very simple modification of the IBM > 7094 to add it makes me want to scream. > > In the mid-eighties when I was at Stratus, I showed the same thing to > the hardware engineers responsible for the math co-processor software in > the Stratus 200 and 600 series. They agreed it would significantly > improve the speed of their square root routines, but AFAIK, it was never > implemented. (This was when we were about to introduce the 2000 series > which used Motorola 68881 math co-processors.) Later, I implemented > this square-root method in software for Sun SPARCs, since it was so much > faster than Sun's math routines for most SPARC chips. (Most UltraSPARC > chips now seem to do the square-root correctly.) > > So yes, I know how to use the Newton-Rhapson method to find square > roots, and I also know how to implement a square-root in microcode so > that it is faster than the hardware divide. But the idea that this was > well or widely known in 1983 is totally false. There were CPUs in the > nineties that still did it wrong. (Of course, in the nineties Intel > managed to get divide wrong as well. Sigh!) Most implementations of > sine and cosine were pretty good, but other trig functions and all > inverses were spotty. Logs again were spotty both natural and common > logs, and most implementations of exp were a horror. Brian Wichmann did > a lot of work on that, including finding cases where many compilers > computed X**4 wrong, even when X was integer and the result was > therefore exact. (The IBM 360 series and follow-ons were infamous for > printing the sum of 2.0 and 2.0 as 3.9999999999999... But that was > actually a problem in the Fortran print routines, not in the internal > representation.) > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-09 13:09 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-10 14:44 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 14:57 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-10 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Now you're talking about having a *Good* square root routine. Your > "political position" is that before we can define "Sqrt (X)" we have to > know how to make a *good* one. My "political position" is that Fortran > had a "Sqrt (X)" that was "good enough" for me to get my work done and > that while someone is off defining a better way of computing the result, > my code could still be making reference to an interface that looked like > "Sqrt (X)" and when the better one comes along, I don't have to change > my code because they decided to call it "Square_Root (X)" instead. As far as I know, all Ada compiler vendors provided the original Cody and Waite math functions as an additional library. Relatively speaking, they were slow but accurate. The only "problem" I am aware of is that DEC, Rational, Verdix, etc. chose different names for the package. That was the major effect of not including them in the standard, you had to change the name in a with clause. (The function names and parameters, as far as I can remember were identical. Hmmm. I think there were some differences/discussions about the parameter names of the two parameter form of Arctangent. Not something that really affected users.) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-10 14:44 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-11 14:57 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-11 18:25 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-11 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Well, as an "end user" in good standing, I'd say it did affect me. I wanted portable source code I could take unchanged from one compiler to another and I couldn't get there. (Not initially, at least) So there was an impact. If I was maintaining code for two different compilers (not at all unheard of) I'd have to go through gyrations of configuration management to deal with it in some manner. Its an issue that can safely be put to bed now, but the lesson ought to be out there for future similar circumstances. Not everybody's political needs are the same, so there need to be compromises. MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > That was the major effect of not including them in the standard, you had > to change the name in a with clause. (The function names and parameters, > as far as I can remember were identical. Hmmm. I think there were some > differences/discussions about the parameter names of the two parameter > form of Arctangent. Not something that really affected users.) > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 14:57 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-11 18:25 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-12 1:49 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-11 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Well, as an "end user" in good standing, I'd say it did affect me. I > wanted portable source code I could take unchanged from one compiler to > another and I couldn't get there. (Not initially, at least) So there was > an impact. If I was maintaining code for two different compilers (not at > all unheard of) I'd have to go through gyrations of configuration > management to deal with it in some manner. True, but not realistic. Having been there and done that, there were two situations that arose. One, you had two compilers for the same hardware, and it was almost trivial to pick one version of the math libraries and treat it as part of your source code. But the much more frequent case was where I was targeting different hardware. Then choosing the "right" version of a library was complicated. For example, I had three bodies of the math libraries for the Amiga: 68000/68010, 68020/68030 with 68881/68882(IEEE), and 68020/68030 without math chip. It would have been nice to be able to build a single library that did the necessary tests when initialized and used the "right" routines automatically, but that didn't work. The floating-point data types and calling sequences were sufficiently different that you really had to compile for the floating-point model you were using. It was no different for other languages, you had to choose an implementation that your machine supported, and it would run much slower than it had to if you choose the wrong version. (Extremely slowly if you generated 68881 calls on a machine that didn't have a math chip.) > Its an issue that can safely be put to bed now, but the lesson ought to > be out there for future similar circumstances. Not everybody's political > needs are the same, so there need to be compromises. Agreed, but don't lose the flip side. I am not sure if a simple database interface will make it into the standard this time around. In Ada 9X it would have been a serious mistake to include one. This time it may be a mistake not to include one, but we could still goof by choosing the wrong one. This is one of the reasons I am participating in this discussion. I would much rather get the key issues for database interfaces right for Ada 200X, and allow multiple implementations of the actual database interfaces. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-11 18:25 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-12 1:49 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 3:52 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 1:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Well, there's an excuse for having a provisional non-standard "standard" by way of a Conventional Ada Library. You could create a database interface - like possibly ODBC - and see what the reaction is. You could add another interface and see if that got better reception. With some experience under your belt, you look to the next Ada revision and possibly declare a "winner" that gets incorporated into the ARM. The CAL support for both still exists (unless there might be some really good reason to get rid of one) so users of the loser aren't stranded. Besides, they get source, so they could freeze some application to a particular version of the CAL and for future applications, use the one in the ARM. I see lots of up-sides to having a non-standard "standard" and not many down-sides. It does what the standard cannot do (be flexible and react quickly) while not depriving the standard from growing once something gets proven out. All it really takes is for the vendors to say "O.K., go ahead and build it and we'll distribute it and declare it to be 'Conventional'..." (O.K. There'd probably have to be some level of funding, but maybe not a whole lot. You just can't do something this big and not expect to have to spend some cashish in the process.) All the rest about incorporation into the ARM, etc, are issues that we have a wide number of ways of resolving down the road, assuming that the effort met with some success. Lets jump off that bridge when we get to it. This same approach could have solved the whole square root problem too, don't you think? :-) MDC Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > Agreed, but don't lose the flip side. I am not sure if a simple > database interface will make it into the standard this time around. In > Ada 9X it would have been a serious mistake to include one. This time > it may be a mistake not to include one, but we could still goof by > choosing the wrong one. This is one of the reasons I am participating > in this discussion. I would much rather get the key issues for database > interfaces right for Ada 200X, and allow multiple implementations of the > actual database interfaces. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-12 1:49 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-12 3:52 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2003-10-12 3:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin David Condic wrote: > Well, there's an excuse for having a provisional non-standard "standard" > by way of a Conventional Ada Library. You could create a database > interface - like possibly ODBC - and see what the reaction is. You could > add another interface and see if that got better reception. With some > experience under your belt, you look to the next Ada revision and > possibly declare a "winner" that gets incorporated into the ARM. The CAL > support for both still exists (unless there might be some really good > reason to get rid of one) so users of the loser aren't stranded. > Besides, they get source, so they could freeze some application to a > particular version of the CAL and for future applications, use the one > in the ARM... > > This same approach could have solved the whole square root problem too, > don't you think? :-) That was exactly the approach taken. I've been trying to remain polite, I think pretty successfully, but I finally realize what was that was rubbing me the wrong way. I worked hard, in some cases unfunded, in other cases funded in various ways, including directly by the AJPO, on a number of extensions to Ada 83. The some of the material in the ADAR components that Dave Emery, Ben Brosgol and I did with AJPO support ended up becoming the foundation of the Information Systems annex, and the foundation for adding decimal types to the standard. Some other parts of ADAR didn't make it. Great! That was exactly the intent. To do the experimentation needed before things got addeded to the standard. I also worked on the CRG to figure out what should be done about Unicode and ISO 10646 (in Ada 95) and the SQL RG where even we said don't put it in. With NUMWG and then the NRG, I was more of an interested spectator than a member with all the other things going on. But again the process was the same. There were lots of meetings and discussions, many draft standards distributed--incuding reference implementations, several approved ISO standards and then those standards were pulled into Ada 95. I guess in this area I have always been willing to jump in and do the work, and then not too concerned about whether that work ends up as part of the Ada standard and/or supported by vendors. There have been a couple areas where I do think wrong decisions were made. But to a great extent it is much more important to TRY and see what happens. Sometimes, as with SQL and SAMeDL, all you find out is that there still isn't a good solution available. A big part of the problem in SQL to Ada bindings is a cognative dissonance. The approaches that seem natural in Ada clash with SQL usage and vice-versa. That's why I became so excited by the Bounded_String_Array abstraction that I posted a few days ago. I think I may be able to use it to write a decent ODBC binding that doesn't require a sea of type declarations and generics. -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 7:02 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-06 13:37 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-06 13:50 ` (see below) 2003-10-06 15:28 ` Preben Randhol 1 sibling, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: (see below) @ 2003-10-06 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw) On 6/10/03 08:02, in article slrnbo24ra.34a.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no, "Preben Randhol" <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote: > What do you mean with desktop apps in a standard library? Anyway I'm > going to finish my work on a template for making GUIs (GtkAda) for > applications later this year. Preben, can you say a little more about this? It sounds very interesting. -- Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 13:50 ` (see below) @ 2003-10-06 15:28 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-06 19:37 ` tmoran 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-06 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2003-10-06, (see below) <yaldnifb@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > On 6/10/03 08:02, in article > slrnbo24ra.34a.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no, > "Preben Randhol" <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org> wrote: > >> What do you mean with desktop apps in a standard library? Anyway I'm >> going to finish my work on a template for making GUIs (GtkAda) for >> applications later this year. > > Preben, can you say a little more about this? > It sounds very interesting. In order to make a program with a GUI you have to do a lot of the same exercise each time. I mean create the menus, statusbar, about dialog, perhaps help dialog. You have to hook up the callbacks etc... The only real difference is that you pack a box in the window which contains your widgets. So I'll make a template that one can start with in order to ease this process. I'm making also making some of the commonly used dialogs so it should be easy to use in the program. At the moment I don't have time, but in a month I will start up working on this again. The idea is that you will be able to get started faster on a project and don't have to waste time on the same design each time. Preben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 15:28 ` Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-06 19:37 ` tmoran 2003-10-07 8:59 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2003-10-06 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw) >In order to make a program with a GUI you have to do a lot of the same >exercise each time. I mean create the menus, statusbar, about dialog, >... >So I'll make a template that one can start with in order to ease this Doesn't GtkAda come with a GUI Builder already? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-06 19:37 ` tmoran @ 2003-10-07 8:59 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-07 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2003-10-06, tmoran@acm.org <tmoran@acm.org> wrote: >>In order to make a program with a GUI you have to do a lot of the same >>exercise each time. I mean create the menus, statusbar, about dialog, >>... >>So I'll make a template that one can start with in order to ease this > Doesn't GtkAda come with a GUI Builder already? Sure, but you still have to do a lot of things. I'm not making a new GUI builder, just something that makes it easier to get started. Preben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 0:09 Standard Library Interest? chris ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-10-05 15:02 ` Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-05 23:33 ` Robert C. Leif 2003-10-06 9:02 ` Vadim Godunko 2003-10-07 0:48 ` Matthew Heaney 5 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Robert C. Leif @ 2003-10-05 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Chris Danx and Marin David Condic started this thread concerning "the development of some kind of standard library independent of the ARM". A mechanism that could be used for this was started at SIGAda 2002 and is accessible at the www.sigada.org web site. Go to SIGAda Working Groups and then Ada Application Programming Interfaces (API) Working Group (APIWG) http://www.sigada.org/wg/apiwg/ Subgroups address areas of special interest areas within APIWG. The areas identified include: * Common Gateway Interface (CGI) * eXtensible Markup Language (XML) Since I head the XML group, I will have a section of the Ada Application Programming Interfaces Working Group I suspect many of the items that you have listed could be construed to fall under XML. Therefore, if you feel like discussing or proposing APIs relevant to XML, please attend. If you can not attend and want me to show a short PowerPoint presentation or anything else that will run on my Windows laptop, I will try to accommodate you. If the material is beyond XML, then if you wish to present, it would be appropriate to contact Clyde Roby, the Chair of the APIWG. My presentation outline is: Birds' of a Feather meeting Ada & XML The prospects for the long-time survival of Ada would be greatly enhanced by creating bidirectional interfaces with the XML family of languages and a formal relationship between SIGAda and the World Wide Web Consortium, W3C. The following questions will be the subject of this Birds' of a Feather meeting: a) What do we have? b) Where is it? c) What needs to be created? d) Who will create what? e) How do we maximize the availability to the Ada and other communities of Ada interfaces to XML and Ada XML artefacts? --Problem: There are very significant differences between Copy-Left and commercial licenses. However, it may be possible to combine the two. Reasons for a strong relationship: f) The XML family of languages have similar semantics to Ada. g) Ada and XML are complimentary; not competitive. --XML is primarily a presentation and data technology. h) XML, particularly XForms, eliminates the need for Java, Javascript and other languages to create web pages. i) XML like Ada is a vendor independent international standard; however, the maintainer of the XML standards, W3C, would have benefited and can still benefit from the services of some Ada language lawyers. Suggested Deliverables: j) XML Schema for Ada k) Bindings to XForms, SVG and XSL --The Xforms and SVG binding could be used to create a GUI for embedded systems. I might add that a binding for MathML would have the interesting possibility of permitting Ada compilers to understand standard mathematical notation. Bob Leif Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. Email rleif@rleif.com www.newportinstruments.com ---------------------------------------------------- chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<TdJfb.5879$RU4.57294@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>... > Hi, > > Recent discussions with Marin David Condic /suggest/ the development of > some kind of standard library independant of the ARM, but hopefully > endorsed by vendors and the ARG, would be a worthwhile endeavour. > Assuming such a library could be created and was attractive to the > community, vendors and the ARG what would people want of such a library? > > What would you want to see available that wasn't going to feature in the > next language revision and didn't quite fit with the long revision times > for the standard? What would you like available that was portable > across platforms for software development? > > I wasn't going to suggest anything as a) I don't want to put words/ideas > in peoples' mouths/heads and b) my interests are highly multimedia > orientated but perhaps including some of the following: > > XML support > Unicode processing library > Support for common image formats* > Support for common audio formats and audio playback* (free formats) > > *with the ability to extend support for other formats. > > XML and Unicode support don't quite fit within the language standard > because they change more frequently, but IMO it'd be nice to have some > standardised support for both of these things. Note with unicode I am > thinking about things like normalisation, etc. > > The idea is to have something that developers can look to on compilers > for general software development, particularly on the desktop. If > developers need it, it will be there and they don't have to look around > as much for the facilities they need. So, what facilities do you need > that perhaps could go in such a library? > > > Chris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 0:09 Standard Library Interest? chris ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-10-05 23:33 ` Robert C. Leif @ 2003-10-06 9:02 ` Vadim Godunko 2003-10-07 0:48 ` Matthew Heaney 5 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Vadim Godunko @ 2003-10-06 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw) chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<TdJfb.5879$RU4.57294@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>... > > XML support > Unicode processing library See http://www.ada-ru.org/files/ais-0.0.1.tar.gz It containt string normalization, collation key computation, some character properties. -- Vadim Godunko ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-05 0:09 Standard Library Interest? chris ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2003-10-06 9:02 ` Vadim Godunko @ 2003-10-07 0:48 ` Matthew Heaney 2003-10-07 8:56 ` Preben Randhol 5 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Matthew Heaney @ 2003-10-07 0:48 UTC (permalink / raw) chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> writes: > Recent discussions with Marin David Condic /suggest/ the development > of some kind of standard library independant of the ARM, but hopefully > endorsed by vendors and the ARG, would be a worthwhile > endeavour. Assuming such a library could be created and was attractive > to the community, vendors and the ARG what would people want of such a > library? There is indeed interest in at least a standard container library for Ada. The call for APIs is here: <http://www.adaic.org/news/call4apis.html> I have submitted a proposal for an API based on the Charles container library. My API proposal is here: <http://home.earthlink.net/~matthewjheaney/charles/ai302.txt> Charles itself is modeled on the C++ STL. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 0:48 ` Matthew Heaney @ 2003-10-07 8:56 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-07 13:08 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 281+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-07 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2003-10-07, Matthew Heaney <matthewjheaney@earthlink.net> wrote: > > There is indeed interest in at least a standard container library for > Ada. The call for APIs is here: > ><http://www.adaic.org/news/call4apis.html> > > I have submitted a proposal for an API based on the Charles container > library. My API proposal is here: > ><http://home.earthlink.net/~matthewjheaney/charles/ai302.txt> > > Charles itself is modeled on the C++ STL. Yes, I think it would be great to get a standard container library as one need this in most situations. Preben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
* Re: Standard Library Interest? 2003-10-07 8:56 ` Preben Randhol @ 2003-10-07 13:08 ` Marin David Condic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 281+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2003-10-07 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw) This would be one reason for not adopting a bunch of existing things for a Conventional Ada Library. If we got a standard set of containers, you'd want all the other utilities to utilize them rather than inventing their own containers. Hence, its better to build one from the ground up that is well integrated and very regular in its interfaces. MDC Preben Randhol wrote: > > Yes, I think it would be great to get a standard container library as one > need this in most situations. > > Preben -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for." --Logan Pearsall Smith ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 281+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-11-06 2:07 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 281+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-10-05 0:09 Standard Library Interest? chris 2003-10-05 1:38 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 11:44 ` chris 2003-10-05 15:16 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 16:40 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 19:22 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 13:12 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 17:09 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 23:34 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 0:23 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-07 12:42 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 13:17 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-07 17:17 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 17:42 ` Larry Hazel 2003-10-07 19:36 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-07 20:31 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-07 21:56 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 1:11 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 16:07 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-10 4:38 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 14:37 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-10 16:24 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-11 14:16 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 1:30 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-12 2:46 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-11 14:07 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-14 14:20 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-14 19:14 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-14 19:27 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-15 12:27 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-15 12:42 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 16:46 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-10 18:00 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-12 11:19 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-12 14:48 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 14:22 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 10:50 ` Ching Bon Lam 2003-10-09 12:11 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-09 18:30 ` tmoran 2003-10-10 1:29 ` Frank 2003-10-10 8:19 ` chris 2003-10-10 2:53 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-08 15:55 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-08 16:49 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 17:18 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 2:59 ` Hyman Rosen 2003-10-08 19:54 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-08 21:40 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-09 12:28 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 15:18 ` Stefan Lucks 2003-10-09 16:10 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-09 16:57 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 4:58 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 9:28 ` Stefan Lucks 2003-10-10 14:59 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-10 16:48 ` Ed Falis 2003-10-10 16:29 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-11 7:01 ` Simon Wright 2003-10-10 15:51 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-10 17:04 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-10 3:02 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-10 5:17 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 16:38 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-11 14:35 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-15 16:24 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-15 17:57 ` Ed Falis 2003-10-15 20:45 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-15 20:44 ` Mark A. Biggar 2003-10-16 12:55 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-16 16:52 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-16 17:53 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-17 13:25 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-18 13:50 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-21 17:14 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-22 13:04 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-22 16:46 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-22 17:13 ` Ed Falis 2003-10-23 5:23 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-23 13:55 ` Ed Falis 2003-10-23 5:21 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-27 17:37 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-28 1:53 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-16 12:38 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-16 17:16 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-16 18:02 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-16 18:23 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-17 0:36 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-17 1:24 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-17 1:40 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-17 2:34 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-17 12:45 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-16 18:04 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-17 20:09 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2003-10-20 17:40 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-21 20:55 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-21 22:46 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-21 21:02 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-10 18:44 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 14:42 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-11 15:10 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 17:58 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-12 1:01 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 0:51 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 1:17 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-12 2:10 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 5:14 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-12 13:39 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 1:20 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-12 2:32 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 11:14 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-16 13:18 ` aleistad 2003-10-07 22:12 ` tmoran 2003-10-07 22:37 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-10-08 16:03 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-09 13:28 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen 2003-10-28 11:25 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-10-28 12:52 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-28 13:28 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-10-28 23:20 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-28 13:21 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-28 16:21 ` Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT) Stephane Richard 2003-10-28 23:37 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-29 1:12 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-29 14:35 ` Marc A. Criley 2003-10-29 23:10 ` tmoran 2003-10-29 23:34 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-31 14:42 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-11-01 3:05 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-01 3:50 ` Stephane Richard 2003-11-01 13:20 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-02 16:41 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-11-02 19:25 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-01 7:20 ` Simon Wright 2003-11-02 17:04 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-11-02 15:09 ` Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player IRVINE) Stephane Richard 2003-11-02 16:18 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-11-02 16:35 ` Stephane Richard 2003-11-02 22:41 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-03 1:07 ` Standard Library Interest? Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-03 1:27 ` Stephane Richard 2003-11-03 12:52 ` Marin David Condic 2003-11-03 3:58 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-03 6:28 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-03 12:11 ` Jeff C, 2003-11-03 17:07 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-04 18:07 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-03 7:54 ` Mark A. Biggar 2003-11-03 21:02 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-04 1:50 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-11-04 18:16 ` Jeffrey Carter 2003-11-06 2:07 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-03 15:14 ` Robert Spooner 2003-11-03 15:38 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2003-11-03 16:52 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-11-03 12:36 ` Marin David Condic [not found] ` <1067340353.3441.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> 2003-10-28 11:30 ` Marius Amado Alves 2003-10-08 1:07 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 1:15 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 1:32 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 15:58 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-08 17:24 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 18:19 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-07 19:29 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-07 20:30 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-08 1:15 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 21:56 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-08 23:56 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 0:29 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 16:47 ` POSIX File Structure Conventions for Ada (Was: Standard Library Interest?) Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-10 17:17 ` Ludovic Brenta 2003-10-11 16:25 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-09 12:42 ` Standard Library Interest? Marin David Condic 2003-10-09 13:07 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 3:15 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-10 8:10 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 12:49 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 13:20 ` Jeff C, 2003-10-11 14:48 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-11 15:09 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 19:22 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 11:30 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 12:36 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 17:41 ` sk 2003-10-11 17:43 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-11 18:08 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 18:11 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-12 1:33 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 5:16 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-15 16:42 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-15 16:35 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-16 12:59 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-17 19:54 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [not found] ` <8d6b51-0u3.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> 2003-10-07 23:58 ` Stephane Richard [not found] ` <f8nc51-gv2.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> 2003-10-08 12:45 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 16:00 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-08 17:37 ` Stephane Richard [not found] ` <hdbf51-523.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.com> 2003-10-09 14:24 ` Hyman Rosen 2003-10-10 12:06 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-10 15:03 ` Stephen Leake 2003-10-05 17:41 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-05 17:48 ` chris 2003-10-05 23:57 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-07 1:44 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-08 20:44 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 2:05 ` Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2003-10-09 5:39 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 9:06 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2003-10-05 14:49 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-05 15:25 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 15:51 ` sk 2003-10-05 18:23 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 19:14 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-06 13:15 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 19:35 ` Jeffrey Carter 2003-10-06 9:46 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-06 13:16 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 14:44 ` Stephane Richard 2003-10-06 16:51 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-06 16:48 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-06 23:38 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 16:42 ` Martin Krischik 2003-10-06 23:39 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 15:02 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 16:43 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 18:31 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 1:58 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-07 12:48 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 20:49 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-05 17:49 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-05 18:43 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-05 23:26 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-06 13:27 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 16:58 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-11 9:55 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-15 16:51 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-16 12:14 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-22 16:48 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG 2003-10-05 19:27 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 13:33 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 17:16 ` Martin Dowie 2003-10-06 23:45 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 16:47 ` chris 2003-10-06 19:03 ` sk 2003-10-06 20:18 ` chris 2003-10-06 21:13 ` sk 2003-10-20 3:22 ` Dave Thompson 2003-10-20 10:29 ` sk 2003-10-07 0:30 ` Mark Lorenzen 2003-10-07 2:13 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-07 22:49 ` Georg Bauhaus 2003-10-08 20:58 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 12:57 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 3:09 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-06 7:02 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-06 13:37 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 14:34 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-06 23:50 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-07 8:55 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-07 13:05 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-06 19:37 ` tmoran 2003-10-06 23:57 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-08 21:46 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 8:10 ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen 2003-10-10 2:29 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-09 9:20 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2003-10-09 13:09 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-10 14:44 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-11 14:57 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-11 18:25 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-12 1:49 ` Marin David Condic 2003-10-12 3:52 ` Robert I. Eachus 2003-10-06 13:50 ` (see below) 2003-10-06 15:28 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-06 19:37 ` tmoran 2003-10-07 8:59 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-05 23:33 ` Robert C. Leif 2003-10-06 9:02 ` Vadim Godunko 2003-10-07 0:48 ` Matthew Heaney 2003-10-07 8:56 ` Preben Randhol 2003-10-07 13:08 ` Marin David Condic
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox