From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-21 14:20:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "David Botton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:14:14 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22872 Date: 2002-04-21T17:14:14-04:00 List-Id: wrote in message news:QEtw8.3627$eg5.1828187369@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > Imagine if my development efforts would have been used to modify and extend > > CLAW instead of writing GWindows...... > I have, and I think it a great loss to the Ada community that you didn't. Your lic. wasn't condusive to it..... I agree, sad. > >GWindows covers almost all areas of CLAW (some intentionally not covered) > >and is way beyond it in other areas (database to control bindings, ActiveX, > David, it's good to see someone take pride in their product, but IMHO > you exaggerate more than a bit. But less than a byte.... Note that I am not knocking your framework, I think it is a masterful work and only regret that it was not available under different lic. terms. These em' not fightin' words.... It just happens to be that I support certain areas CLAW doesn't and a few other areas I do support CLAW is a bit more thorough. If you had a better lic. you would of course be able to grab some code for GWindows and GNATCOM...... but oh well. > Is GWindows then the basis of some standard? In the same way the Java AWT and SWING is the basis of a standard ;-O > Has it been extended by > the wider community? Yes, there have been a number of additions (including entire features not just bug fixes!). The greatest complement in the world is that some one has extended your work and sent it back in for others to use. Their efforts are more knoble than mine! > Is it under as active development as Claw? Yes. I saddly have to take breaks here and there for extend amounts of time do to work load from the "other side", but my track record shows that I get more than a bit done in the days and months I manage to grab here and there (though they may be far apart....) :-) I am often envious that you have the opportunity to work full time in Ada and on your Ada based projects (in part perhaps do to your restrictive lic.), but in the long term I believe that my approach will pay off in a larger way (part of which concerns money, but certainly satisfaction comes not only in the financial arena). I am certainly already more satisified on a personal level than with any of what I have produced under traditional terms and licences (Although I do get a kick out of detecting a company is using software I wrote for their phone systems from my last gig). > As to > outliving its developers, we'll have to leave that to others to see. ;) Perhaps, but hopefully we will both be around for another 180 years to see others enjoy our work. Perhaps by then CLAW will well then be lic. with the GMGPL unless of course Ada takes over than GPL..... David Botton