TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Beard, Frank" <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:10:01 -0400
text/plain (62 lines)
Come on guys!  I hate to see in-fighting among the Ada
community.  Save that for the unwashed programming
masses.  We're  starting to deteriorate to the "name calling"

I think everybody pretty much agrees that we will qualify the
term "standard" with the appropriate adjective when we use it,
as Mike and others have suggested.

I think everyone agrees we need to keep the engineering
discipline in Ada.

I think everyone pretty much wants to see Ada running on
as many platforms as possible (including Windows), keeping
the tools as uniform as possible (notice I didn't say as standard
as possible, for fear of creating another thread fractle ;-).

And after all, Windows is a valid platform for development,
but I for one refuse to do anything with the MFC or the
Registry because I want my application to be as platform
independent as possible.  Currently I'm using a POSIX
spec with Windows API calls in the body to do my system
specific stuff.  (And yes I know if I wrap the MFC calls within
my own class then I only have to re-write the body if I need
to switch platforms.  And yes I also know there is a vendor
out there that ported the MFC to Linux, and will probably do
so for other platforms).

I don't think Rick is trying to perpetuate Microsoft propaganda,
because he does have a valid point that we can't ignore it
and it would be a good arena for increasing Ada awareness.
I assumed that was his point and don't want to read anymore
into it.

I think pretty much all of us are grateful to David Botton,
Jim Walker, and others for contributing so much to the
Ada effort.  Sorry for those I left out, I'm just too tired to
try and remember all the names at this point.

The problem with E-Mail sometimes is that it's easy for
misunderstandings to arise just from simple omissions.
I have a bad habit writing things within a certain context
making assumptions that others will take those conditions
for granted, only to have it erupt into a flurry of dialog.  I think
everyone here agrees more than disagrees but we're

I know I've been frustrated lately with having to qualify
everything I'm saying, and I've been about as guilty with
lashing back in like manor.  Because why should I have
to reason out someone else's statement when they're
requiring me to be crystal clear.

Let's be a little more forgiving and try to assume the best
instead of the worst (innocent until proven guilty).  Let's
get back to collaborating instead of clobbering (I'm tired,
it's the best I could come up with).

Kiss and make up guys, because "I love you man!" ;-)