Re: Container reqs

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:

> What would be wrong with starting with a simple set of data structures that
> got 90% of the work done and then expanding the requirements as experience
> demands?
> 
> For example: Why not produce a set of packages that supports a) a
> homogeneous bi-directional list and b) a homogeneous map? I'll concede to
> the need for a static & dynamic version of each. That would be what gets
> called in the technical papers "A Good Start"(tm).

I agree. My set of components does not currently provide a "homogenous
map". At least, I don't think it does - I'm not sure you define that
the same way I do. 

So, how about you download my components, add a homogeneous map, and
then somebody else can add what they want.

I know, someone will chime in with "Why start with Stephe's instead of
the Booch Components?". Well, that is exactly the question we need to
be discussing now.

Several people have put together what they consider "A Good Start".
The question is, is there enough consensus for any one of these to
convince the rest of us to jump on board, and integrate our stuff into
it (instead of the other way around).

> It probably should have a handful of sorting & searching algorithms
> for arrays as well. (Anything else you want to sort & search on a
> regular basis?)
> 
> My feeling is that if the scope were kept to something simple and functional
> for a large majority of uses, it is more likely to get implemented and used.
> Packages with more options, more parameters, different behaviors,
> heterogeneous content, sufficient OO-ness, less used structures, etc. can
> all be added later.

Perhaps you could vote on the several that are out there, indicating
which one most closely fits _your_ needs. Then everyone else could do
the same. Some data would be useful here.

-- 
-- Stephe