Re: Calculating SQRT in ADA

["Howard W. LUDWIG" <howard.w.ludwig@lmco.com>]

robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> I disagree, it is generally confusing to talk about
> obsolete languages unless necessary. If people ask about
> Ada, it is reasonable to assume they mean Ada 95. If people
> really want to ask about Ada 83 (or Ada 80, or whatever),
> then they need to qualify the questions appropriately.

I would like the situation to be as you describe.  If someone asks specific
questions about tagged records, modular integers, etc. using appropriate
terminology, then it makes good sense to assume Ada 95, as Ada 83 did not
deal with such.  However, we seem to get many newbies who have just been
hired to maintain Ada 83 code, and many times it is apparent that either
the person is using Ada 83 (because the answer to the question is obvious
to the casual observer in Ada 95) or does not know where to find
documentation.  (Of course, we do encounter the scenario of people not
wanting to bother to look up documentation, as most of us know in Robert's
pulling his secret documentation out of his drawer to answer GNAT
questions.)

I suppose my main point is really that we should be more careful in how we
address questions of potential newbies (who may not even know there is an
Ada 95 in contrast to Ada 83).  Some of us have this tendency to jump on
such people, belittling their honest ignorance, and showing off our
superior knowledge.  Such responses make the true newbie a bit wary of Ada
based on an apparent elitist culture in the Ada community.  We don't need
that kind of negative marketing.

HWL