From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-07 15:40:13 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Library Interest? Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 02:37:49 +0400 (MSD) Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1065566352 6778 80.67.180.195 (7 Oct 2003 22:39:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 22:39:12 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: ; from Stephen Leake at 07 Oct 2003 16:31:37 -0400 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:409 Date: 2003-10-08T02:37:49+04:00 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