Re: Translating 83 => 9X (Was: Re: Ada 9X objectives)

[rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)]

In article <6667@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>> 
>> Holy smokes!!!!  Is it just me folks, or does the statement above imply that 
>> (a) Ada 9X has already been designed, and (b) it *does not*  provide upward
>> compatibility for Ada 83 programs?
>
>   It means only what it says: whatever 9X's final form, the use 
>   of automatic translation technology will probably be maximized.
>   This probably will take the form of an automatic translator being
>   built to Government specs and placed in the Ada Software Repository.
>
>   I would think that there would be enough similarity to make the
>   use of automatic translation reasonable; ...

I think that you missed my point entirely.

I have to assume that there is a large base of Ada 83 users out there who
hope and pray that "the use of automatic translation" would *not* be
"reasonable", but would instead be TOTALLY UNNECESSARY when moving to Ada 9X.

I will ask one more time and hope for a more direct answer.  Has it already
been decided that Ada 83 and Ada 9X will be sufficiently incompatible so
as to *require* translation?  (Hint: this is a yes-or-no question.)

If the answer is no, then why is the government planning on building/using
a translator (or translators) when the need for such tools & processes is
not yet even established?  Has Samuel Pierce moved over to DoD from HUD, or
is this just the 1990's version of the $600 screwdriver?

If the answer is yes, then it *must* logically follow that *somebody*
knows what the incompatibilities are.  Otherwise, how could anyone know
that automatic translation will be required (or even useful).
If so, that person (or persons) are doing a disservice to the Ada
community by not comming forward to warn Ada 83 users about features to
avoid from now on.  Could it perhaps be the case that the individuals who
know what the incompatibilities are (ahem, I mean what they "will be") are
keeping it to themselves in the hope of later capitalizing on this "insider
information"?

Either way, something here smells like three-day-old fish.

// rfg