RE: ARG asks Ada Community for API Proposals.

["Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>]

From: Bob Leif
To: Dale Stanbrough et al.
The libraries should be kept separate from the standard. The period
between revisions to the Ada standard is way too long for bindings to
other software, such as XML. Many libraries should be first created by
some sort of consensus system and tried out as provisional standards.
Then, they can be promoted to being an annex or a part thereof. Many of
the annexes should be decoupled from synchrony with the standard.
Besides permitting the necessary adaptability at the periphery of the
Ada standard, it will permit a continuous rather than a batch approach
to the maintenance of the language. In short, we should follow the old
software principle of divide and conquer.

As for the API, it should be based on XML. If we can not have one
programming language, we should limit the number to two. Ada and XML are
similar and complement each other.

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org] On Behalf Of Dale Stanbrough
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:48 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: ARG asks Ada Community for API Proposals.

In article <uet84otoe3m4c4@corp.supernews.com>,
 "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> Speaking for myself (not necessarily the ARG), I don't think you
should
> read too much into those criteria. They certainly were not intended to
> be an exclusive list. To my mind, the important point is that the
> libraries have a community consensus (where "community" is
intentionally
> vague), and are not just something written by someone in their
basement.
> If Grace has a consensus, then it will necessarily meet the usage
> criteria, if not immedately, certainly by the time the standard gets
> done.
> 
> As far as point 2 goes, it seems to me that the ease-of-use criteria
got
> omitted. I don't think anyone wants complex solutions where simple
ones
> will do. Going overboard on functionality can be a mistake, because if
> the package is too large, people will have trouble using it.


What are the likely new features of Ada though? If we have 
can have some form of implicit instantiation of generics, or
if Ada provides fully fledged constructors (not just functions)
or if Ada deprecates the use of some features, then all of these
could well affect the design of any class libraries.

Perhaps Ada needs to have a library standardisation process
which is 180 degrees out of phase with the language standardisation,
so that we can incorporate features placed into the language.

Dale