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: 103376,1dd28d5040ded1f8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-21 07:34:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Announce: Grace project site operational Date: 21 May 2002 10:23:28 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov) Message-ID: References: <4519e058.0205150657.3b695758@posting.google.com> <4519e058.0205160543.34b32481@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1021991430 396 128.183.220.71 (21 May 2002 14:30:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 May 2002 14:30:30 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24464 Date: 2002-05-21T14:30:30+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" writes: > But then you're widening out the scope of Grace. Is Grace a simple library > of useful, general purpose, programming utilities? Yes. > Or is Grace a software development kit? Also yes. > I personally would like to see it stick to being just a collection > of useful packages that address general programming problems. That > way, there is some reasonable liklihood that it can become something > of a standard. Well, the "standardization committee" can pick and choose from Grace components. > It also keeps the scope down to something likely to be achievable > within our lifetimes. :-) I'd like to open it up to anything anyone wants to contribute, that has a reasonable chance of being useful to many people. I have not yet looked at PragmArc's unit package generator, but it's probably a good first draft, which puts it on a par with Grace.Lists. It's certainly a less complex problem; I think it received a reasonable amount of design discussion here, and a reasonable amount of "I'd like that". > I think if someone wanted to produce a tool to generate packages on > demand, this might be a useful thing, but that it probably should > not be part of Grace. Sounds like we need a "Grace committee" to vote on what goes in Grace. That might be a good idea; the "GNAT committee" has done a fantastic job :). -- -- Stephe PS. Yes, I know ACT is way more than a committee. That's what the smiley is for.