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: 2002-04-14 13:42:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr13.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community References: <3CB94312.5040802@snafu.de> X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.115.106.129 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com 1018816863 ST000 67.115.106.129 (Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:41:03 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:41:03 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: S[O[SX[DGJVOBFD[LZKJOPHAWB\^PBQLGPQRZQMIWIWTEPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 20:41:04 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22529 Date: 2002-04-14T20:41:04+00:00 List-Id: > You will find in the Ada 95 communit a lot of open > source software solutions covering the following topics: > ....XML,SOAP + 1 Million implemantions of lists and container Why is it that the available solutions are a mile wide but an inch deep? Everybody wants to build an alternative to X, but nobody wants to build on top of X. What are the rewards/difficulties of building a new alternative to X? What are the rewards/difficulties of building something more complex that -uses- X? Apparently the latter is worse. As Randy Brukardt noted the other day, the original idea for Claw "was to create a de facto standard, make a subset freely available, and eventually put the binding into the public domain to be a standard." But it didn't happen. Recently someone complained that Claw didn't currently support several features he needs. Nobody, to my knowledge, has added support for X to Claw, but multiple people have created alternative Windows bindings, none of which has become a standard, and none of which supports the features that writer needed. So he plans to use C++. The same for "a lot of open source software solutions covering ..." Given all the time in the world, it's a fine thing to "let 100 flowers bloom" and explore all the alternative ways of doing X. That does not get you beyond X, however.