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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-17 10:17:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Future with Ada Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:05:06 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9vl8k2$2t2$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9v57u1$mfb$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9v74ov014bc@drn.newsguy.com> <9vb24v$7fg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9vdp9f$9vo$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1008608706 2978 136.170.200.133 (17 Dec 2001 17:05:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Dec 2001 17:05:06 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18021 Date: 2001-12-17T17:05:06+00:00 List-Id: Well, its a classic "Make or Buy" decision. There are a number of libraries that were proposed that might have been used - with modifications. That gets you out the door quicker but doesn't necessarily meet with all the requirements. The problem seems to be that in tossing out a handful of possible libraries to adopt, there were a non-trivial number of people who had some non-trivial objections to the existing libraries. We're never going to get 100% acceptance of any library, but it wasn't sounding as if there was any fairly large body of developers that was willing to "Adopt & Adapt" (Embrace & Extend?). I agree it would be quicker and guarantee a result to go the "Adopt & Adapt" route - but there didn't seem to be something out there that was good enough to get some acquiescence. If its going to be "interest group driven" then there's got to be "interest group buy-in" and I don't see a large amount of that for any given candidate library already out there. (Unless there's a great silent-majority of lurkers out there who aren't expressing any of their desires?) Hence, I think the best chance there is to get something group-driven is to keep persuing the group-developed alternative. I wouldn't mind being wrong about this but I don't see it happening. Unless the vendors want to say "Just Do It - (with library X)" it looks like the only way its going to get done is if the group builds one of its own. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Brian Rogoff" wrote in message news:Pine.BSF.4.40.0112171622550.17842-100000@bpr.best.vwh.net... > On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Pat Rogers wrote: > > "Mark Lundquist" wrote in message > > > I must say that I'm quite opposed to the "pick one and go with it idea", > > and > > > I really wish that you would reconsider recommending it. I think we can > > do > > > better than that, and that's what some of us here are trying to do. > > > > Then I hope I am wrong. > > I don't think you are. Remmeber there was another waste of time effort in > this direction a few years ago, too. > > -- Brian > >