Re: Ada means what version by default ?

[kevq@banana.demon.co.uk (Kevin F. Quinn)]

In article <1995Apr4.210804.9579@eisner.decus.org>,
          kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:

> In article <3ls5sb$nl8@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> > Seriously, we should from now on consider on this newsgroup that Ada means
> > Ada 95 by default.
> 
> I strongly disagree.  That language which has validated commercial
> compilers most widely available should be the default.
> 
> Of course, in the spirit of Ada, it would seem that the version should
> be fully specified in all postings where it matters.

I'd agree there.  Robert D. is in a bit of a special position w.r.t.
Ada95; most Ada use out there is Ada83 (by a very long way).  And that
will probably continue to be the case for a good few years yet, given the
duration of a typical Ada project and the availability (or lack) of tried,
tested and trusted compilers. 

I would also submit that when people refer to Ada95, it is likely
that they will mention it, often by reference to which version of
GNAT they are using - partly 'coz the version of GNAT is often
important, and partly because they recognise the as-yet weak penetration
of Ada95 into the market.  Whereas an Ada83 user is much more likely
just to say "Ada", and is often completely unaware that Ada95 even
exists.

I certainly intend to specify both ways as far as this group was
concerned, and I humbly submit that this is the best way to go,
for a while at any rate.  That way any newcomers will see immediately
that there are two types of Ada, Ada83 and Ada95

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn           * "No-one ever made any money out of good
kevq@banana.demon.co.uk  *  looks and charm."
kevq@cix.compulink.co.uk * "You obviously haven't met Lady Hamilton..."
Compu$erve: 100025,1525  *                               Blackadder III