From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Adacore Blog - Going Beyond Ada 2022
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 17:50:26 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <sa8mfj$84q$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <a2188489-c571-40ac-9a07-61417b46d8f1n@googlegroups.com><s9piig$1bn$1@dont-email.me><b05ea19f-aa65-4f94-97a5-0356e4e2a693n@googlegroups.com><87v96n2e2h.fsf@nightsong.com><b7d8c60c-807e-4cd6-9069-4ec1597e0227n@googlegroups.com><54c3041a-b68f-4719-88bc-d2a1587a2d2cn@googlegroups.com><12a77501-1187-4f83-a1ad-8bf7e95b1040n@googlegroups.com> <sa7bcn$5vn$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 22:50:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk; posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="8346"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62228
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"John McCabe" <john@nospam.mccabe.org.uk> wrote in message 
news:sa7bcn$5vn$1@dont-email.me...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 13:29:44 -0700, Andreas ZEURCHER wrote:
...
> However, this is, basically, a potential risk with the AdaCore RFC
> approach; if they forward the feature to the ARG and the ARG comes back
> with "well, nice, but it would be better if it did this", and AdaCore say
> "but that would be too hard for us now", then what happens?

This is a double-edged sword, of course; if something is hard to implement 
(even if better), it might never get adopted at all (look at Algol 68 for a 
historical example of a committee ignoring practical considerations).

And this sort of thing has occurred as far back as Ada 9x: various Ada 9x 
proposals were withdrawn because of opposition from implementers (especially 
DEC, which never actually built an Ada 95 compiler). Perhaps it would have 
been better if those proposals had gone forward, but that's hard to say. 
It's also possible that those proposals would have prevented construction of 
some Ada 95 compilers.

My point is that there needs to be a balance; one should not let one 
implementer or one group dictate everything, but one cannot ignore 
implementers either. (A correlary to that: the implementers should not 
ignore the ARG, either! That happened to some degree with Ada 202x.)

                                  Randy.