Re: OO & Standard Libraries

["Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps-nospam.net>]

In <abbgk3$bc9$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic wrote:

> I particularly liked:
> 
> "Bundling of libraries with IDE, compiler or VM creates defacto standards
> and control points for language/platform vendors."
> 
> I think the article has some interesting things to say on the subject and
> ought to be a good read for those of us interested in getting a "standard"
> component library into Ada.

I wish he'd back up statements like the following:
"""
While there are many outstanding open source contributions there is 
naturally a much larger number of poor quality implementations. The
Open Source GUI libraries such as Motif and GTK are both problematic
and are in large part responsible for the lack of Linux use on the desktop.
"""

The author doesn't provide any basis for any of the assertions in
this paragraph.  Does the word "monopoly" mean anything?  Besides,
Motif is only recently "open source"; way too late for consideration
by "open source" folks switching to it from KDE/QT or GNOME/GTK.

The author is apparently arguing for a consortium type organization
with license agreements, etc...  This is exactly what kept Linux
folks from using Motif (and why GTK was created).  Funny, he seems
to be in the business of being a middleware middleman...

Anyway, I don't much care for journal articles that make lots of
unsubstantiated arguments and assertions; the author fails to 
provide even one reference to back up any of his arguments.  As 
such, it's just some guy's opinion. Granted, it's a guest column
and not a "research ariticle" -- kind of stretching the idea of
a "journal" publication by having guest columns... just call it
a magazine!