Re: Type casting question

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

In article <83tdjp$hts$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, reason67@my-deja.com writes:

>> The notion that Ada means Ada 95 is not an invention of the
>> list, it is the formal position of ISO. Once a new standard
>> comes out, the name refers ONLY to the current standard!
> 
> While, technically, that may be true, in the market place job are
> advertised in the USA as Ada or Ada 95. If a recruiter tells me about an
> Ada job, it has always been (in my experience) an Ada 83 job. If the job
> is Ada 95, then that is specifically stated. People I have worked with
> in the Ada 83 world refer to Ada 83 as simply "Ada". People I have
> worked with in the Ada 95 world refer to the two languages as Ada 83 and
> Ada 95.
> 
> Perhaps your experience is different, but I do not consider ISO's
> position on what can and can not be called Ada to be nearly as relevent
> as what people are actually doing.

Several of the people in the newsgroup have spent many years working on
the development of the Ada 95 standard and then on developing compilers
to implement it (for various vendors).  From their perspective Ada 83
is old, even though for many of us Ada 83 suffices.

You will notice a difference, however, in the degree to which the Ada 95
experts are able to relate to those who are not in their position. Some
of them are much more easygoing, for example Tucker Taft.

Larry Kilgallen