Re: Ada means what version by default ?

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <3lv3g2$eek@felix.seas.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
> In article <1995Apr4.210804.9579@eisner.decus.org>,
> Larry Kilgallen <kilgallen@eisner.decus.org> wrote:

>>Of course, in the spirit of Ada, it would seem that the version should
>>be fully specified in all postings where it matters.
> 
> Certainly, but I'd like to try and extract a promise from all us regulars
> that we won;t flame newbies who get it wrong. Please. Let's be polite
> and helpful. THAT will aid Ada's acceptance in a big way.

Absolutely!  There is an individual in another newsgroup who will flame
any questioner who does not fully specify their problem environment (hey,
if the questioner knew it all, they wouldn't be asking, would they).

Others will answer politely presuming one environment either implicitly
(not good) or explicitly (good).

What I have seen on comp.language.ada, however is much better.  Many
folks will give _both_ the Ada 83 and Ada 95 answer.  The crucial point
is to make sure it comes across not as "if you are smart enough to have
version X", but rather "if you happen to have version X available to you".

Even if every vendor past and present were to instantaneously release an
Ada 95 compiler, being the commercial money-grubbing capitalists that they
are :-), they would probably charge for it.  Not every user can afford to
buy a new compiler, even if they are required to use commercial compilers.
Correspondingly, some who can afford to buy a new compiler are not allowed
to switch compilers in mid-contract.

So there are lots of non-technical reasons to use Ada 83 for many years.
Don't let this newsgroup become elitist.

Larry Kilgallen