Re^2: Ada 9X objectives

[jcardow@blackbird.afit.af.mil (James E. Cardow)]

I have to agree with Mr Wolfe, a two year update cycle would cause havoc
with the language and the organizations attempting to support the software
already developed or nearing the end of development.  The support organizations
for large, real-time software systems (the original target of Ada) would like 
nothing more than to have the latest and greatest improvements in their 
software and support tools.  The problem is, minor changes cause major problems.Consider the ten to twenty year development cycle for large projects.  Compiler vendors (not to mention) compilers enter and exit the market over that period.
The software and the compiler must then be supported by someone else.

The ten year span is most likely too long.  The additional time to effectively 
propagate the change and maneuver through the bureaucracy stretches the time to
closer to 15 years.  With that time frame, too many technically sound
improvements are ignored.  Those of us is support painfully realize the
difference 15 years of technology change make.

As far as what changes should be considered, the first step should be an 
evaluation of the features of "research" languages.  The very features that
make them attractive are probably the most desired in changes to other
languages. Inheritance as handled by C++ would certainly seem to be a prime
candidate.  There is usually a reason why those features make the language
 attractive, not considering and incorporating them is foolish.

Changes to Ada 83 are needed.  The change frequency should be reevaluated.
The healthy discussion over which change to include is outstanding.  Too bad
the support community is not making a greater input, they will live with the
results long after the developers move on to newer ideas.