From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f805ceba146bd74
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-15 22:08:42 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!demos1!glas!demos1!watnews1.watson.ibm.c!watson.ibm.com!ncohen
From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 14 Oct 94 17:28 GMT+0300
Subject: Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994
Message-ID: <37m4ir$cp3@watnews1.watson.ibm.c>
References: <1994Oct7.181343.9070@sei.cmu.edu>
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <notes@glas.apc.org>
Date: 1994-10-14T17:28:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Subject: Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

In article <CxMAr6.EFD@odin.corp.sgi.com>, davemc@shindo.esd.sgi.com
(Dave McAllister) writes: 

|> I personally like the 9X designation. In fact, I went 'on record' in 1992 at the
|> Ada/Australia conference that 9X should be left as the designation.
|>
|> If he products are solid and timely, why dump all the coverage hte 9X name has
|> today?

I've been telling non-Ada people about Ada 9X for years, only to be
dismissed with "Well, that's still a long way off."  (It was the same
reaction Bjarne Stroustrup objected to when he complained about people
treating the ANSI extensions to C++ as "science fiction.")  When I refer
instead to the features offered by Ada 94, people tend to take it more
seriously as a viable option and a tangible reality.  (The existence of
GNAT certainly helps in this regard!)

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com