From: john.mccabe@emrad.ns.com (John McCabe)
Subject: Re: bit shift
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:19:07 GMT
Date: 2002-02-26T09:19:07+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3c7b5294.1655901@news.demon.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5ee5b646.0202251008.2e7aac6@posting.google.com
On 25 Feb 2002 10:08:25 -0800, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote:
>Not that I blame him, at this stage, seven years after
>the Ada 95 standard has been issued, it seems a pity
>that anyone has to struggle with the use of an obsolete
>language :-)
As you may remember, one of the big deals about Ada was
maintainability and, as you may also remember, one of the other big
deals was about using it for projects that are likely to have a
lifespan of decades rather than the few weeks that you get with other
fly-by-night language based projects :-) So it is not surprising that
there are a significant number of people out there who will be
required to maintain and enhance Ada 83 systems without risking the
jump to Ada 95.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-26 9:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-25 14:03 bit shift Stephen Frackelton
2002-02-25 15:09 ` Jim Rogers
2002-02-25 15:25 ` A Interfaces package for '83? Petter Fryklund
2002-02-25 20:27 ` bit shift Ted Dennison
2002-02-25 21:47 ` Jim Rogers
2002-02-25 22:59 ` Frank J. Lhota
2002-02-25 17:20 ` John McCabe
2002-02-25 18:08 ` Robert Dewar
2002-02-26 9:19 ` John McCabe [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox