Re: Standard Library Interest? (The Big Player ACT)

["Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7471 bytes --]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3FA322D8.2040003@noplace.com...
>
> There is an enormoous difference between getting a library that, when
> installed (with an install shield or similar - not just "unpack it and
> figure it out for yourself) has a built-in hyperlinked document that
> gives you help on any given class or method you can point at and click,
> versus someone saying "You can always get a good book for a library that
> was written in a different language and figure that our library lines up
> pretty close to that one."
>
*** the name AdaBrowse or AdaDoc come to mind here.  added a more
descriptive description where relevant.  But wouldn't one of these two
produce a good bases to a hiperlinked document?  I've never seen a result of
these two so I'm actually asking a question here, not being sarcastic or
anything :-).


> Whatever documentation is available for Charles, it isn't an integrated
> part of the library. There may be any number of ways for the determined
> user to find out what Charles does, but it isn't just standing right
> there saying "Here I am - let me tell you more about it..." Does the
> documentation even come with the distribution? Does the documentation
> hyperlink to the code after installation - or, more importantly, does
> the code hyperlink to the documentation? Really first rate documentation
> is a *HARD* thing to achieve and (not to criticize Charles) I have not
> seen any all-volunteer, freebie products out there for Ada that meet the
> truly professional standards one can expect from many commercial products.
>
*** I think here, we need to make a difference between what ACT expects of
the ARG in terms of documentation of whatever they included in an Ada
Standard and the documentation they expect from a library.  Charles library
is good, not documented to ARG standards, but definitaly well document for a
library. Although yes I have to agree they do expect a professional
documentation level of the source code, I dont think they would require the
same as what they would get from the ARG if they can't find what they are
looking for from the ARG itself.

> While ACT is free to do whatever they like, I would find it unlikely
> that they would glom onto Charles as-is and just start distributing it.
> They'd either wait until a better level of documentation were done or
> have to invest their own energy into doing so. In either case, I think
> that vendor involvement and support is much more likely to get the job
> done than waiting for volunteers to do it - especially when those
> volunteers don't see any potential reward other than the fame, glory and
> opportunity to meet chicks.
>
*** Again here, the laws of Offer and Demand are at hand.  if they can't do
nothing else but provide Charles library because of Demand, and regular
impatience of the typical customer, they might be more flexible on
standards.  They do want it well documented, but they dont seem to have the
same vision of documentation if they have to look outside the ARG at least
not as per the phone conversation.

*** Now, given two libraries that perform the same functions, one is
hyperlinked, the other is not, both are not available or even submitted to
the ARG, I couldn't say if they wouldn't prefer the hypertexted version.  If
you came across two libraries that do the same thing, which would you go
for? if you didn't have a choice and the only one doesn't have hyperlink
documentation, would you refrain from using it?

>
>
> > (Does it help knowing that STL work began with Ada and Scheme? :)
> >
> Nope. If I loved the STL so much, I'd run off and use C++. Ada having
> inspired the STL and Charles having copied the STL is pretty irrelevant.
> Its Ada saying "Me too!!!" rather than "I'm head-and-shoulders above the
> STL!"
>
*** Agreeing 100% with you here.

> It is still light years away. In the case of MSVC++ and the MFC - I lay
> down some money, I run through an install shield and *BAM*! There I am
> with a library and hyperlinked documentation built into an IDE that is
> extremely thorough and complete. In the other, I download Booch. I go
> looking for books - which I probably have to order because it isn't at
> the local Barnes and Noble, I study the text for hours, I get a question
> about some class or method and I'm off leafing through paper, etc. In
> situation 1, it is very convenient, easy, direct, immediate, etc. In the
> other, I have to put forth all sorts of effort to get all the pieces and
> I have no guarantee that any of it is even connected or up to date.
>
> If you want to gain users, you must make it as EASY and PAINLESS as
> possible to get REALLY high quality stuff. Users are like water flowing
> downhill - they seek the path of least resistance. You can argue all day
> long "But this is just as good as.....!!!!!" and they will stay away
> from your product in droves if there is something easier and more
> complete out there. I don't have to argue the point - they're doing it
> for me by avoiding Ada like the plague.
>
*** In my case, I gladly switched to Ada and I didn't care about hypertexted
documents...sure that's me, and I couldn't tell you I'm part of the majority
or not, but I'm not the only one.  However I do see your point.  Would it be
enough to drive away programmers?  well not in my case, but I can imagine
that the answer woudl have to be yes (at least to most new comers to the
programming world....when I started programming (1976) hyperlinks and such
didn't even appear in sci-fi movies yet...so I gladly welcomed a good book
over no books at all :-).

> Its just that if you look at the *competition*, they're offering a lot
> more than a batch of source code and a .PDF file with some general
> descriptions of what's in it. You can't say "I'm *almost* that good."
> You have to say "I'm *superior*!" or nobody has any incentive to switch
> from what they've got to what you're offering.
>
> MDC
>
*** Well *superior* is the key word here. for obvious questions about a
library element (wether a package, a sub package, a procedure or even a
constant = to 1.  where do you draw the line?  the MSVC++ IDE is good, let's
not beat around the bush with that, it's a fact.  GPS is not too far from it
in some parts, and superior in others.

*** but the hyperactive links to the help and all this "MS technology" tends
to weave a more tangled web than we can handle.  if you press SHIFT F1 on a
keyword sure you get it's definition, explanation blah blah
blah.....but....if you're looking for an "I wonder if it does __________
fill in the blank" kind of quesion in that web, I garantee you that in MSDN,
you'll find:

1. possible answers in irrelevant programming languages such as VB
2. a multitude of sublinks to point 1.
3. Probably a detailed GPSed world map
4. The cure to the common cold (but you will continue searching and pass
that golden oppurtunity right by).
5. With a little bit of luch, a couple pots of coffee, and a whole lot of
tylenol extra strength, you might arrive at your answer amongst about 300
directly or indirectly (and even not related at all) other possibilities.

I'm being optimistic here, there's probably a couple points I'm missing in
the results. ;-)

That's what I got searching for any "wonder if it does ___________ " type of
questions...one of which can be located rapidly in an index. :-)

-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com