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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a8985ede8fe3d111 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-20 12:15:11 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!news.clark.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!bketcham From: bketcham@u.washington.edu (Benjamin Ketcham) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Child packages Date: 20 Oct 1994 19:02:22 GMT Organization: University of Washington Message-ID: <386eru$8m7@nntp1.u.washington.edu> References: <1994Oct4.090807@di.epfl.ch> <38496c$1l1@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <385thq$kh6@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: saul5.u.washington.edu Date: 1994-10-20T19:02:22+00:00 List-Id: In article , Robert I. Eachus wrote: [...] > With education and tool support, the problem should disappear >relatively quickly as old code is updated to new standards. [...] Wait, I thought the benefit of Ada (even Ada 83, which is, after all, still the only validated standard, isn't it?) was that you didn't *need* to "update old code to new standards" because the standard was so safe and readable and mission-critical and a whole bunch of other things that supposedly justify paying ten times as much up front, because it will last ten times as long and maintenance costs will be lower and so you'll save money in the long run and.... So which is it? Will the "problem" "disappear relatively quickly" because all that "legacy" Ada code that was supposed to last 1000 years now needs to be changed to the Even Better, Enhanced, Last Language You'll Ever Need (And This Time, We Mean It) standard? Or will the "problem" be hanging around for *decades* because all that yucky Old-Style Ada 83 just keeps going, and going, and.... --ben