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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ee41f292779851e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-24 06:10:32 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!Starbase.NeoSoft.COM!not-for-mail From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada explanation? Date: 24 Jan 1995 08:10:32 -0600 Organization: NeoSoft Internet Services +1 713 684 5969 Message-ID: <3g31oo$4qu@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> References: <9501181627.AA19623@eurocontrol.de> <3g0567$g3@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: starbase.neosoft.com Date: 1995-01-24T08:10:32-06:00 List-Id: In article , David Emery wrote: >>The truth of the matter is the ISO standardization process of both >>languages is similar: both are on the fast track, both were open to >>public review > >There's a slightly misleading statement here. Neither Ada95 nor C++ >are using the 'fast track' ISO/IEC JTC1 proceedures. Both languages >have ISO working groups (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 for Ada and >SC22/WG20(?) for C++). Both language standards are proceeding through >the normal ISO review cycle, including committee drafts, DIS and IS >ballots. > I sit corrected. However, it is still the case that both languages are moving through the approval process at a "faster than considered 'normal'" rate. -- Frustrated with C/C++, Pascal, Fortran? Ada95 _might_ be for you! For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command: "finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)