Re: Top 10 Ada myths

[dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller)]

In article <Mats.Weber-2003952122500001@mlma11.matrix.ch>,
Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@matrix.ch> wrote:
>In article <EACHUS.95Mar20113605@spectre.mitre.org>,
>eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:
>
>> [...] (Of course, the
>> moment anything in this field is "finished," you find errors and bugs.
>> But Ada 95 has been much, much better than Ada 83 in this regard [...]
>
>How do you know ? There isn't even a complete compiler around. I think
>certain bugs in the Ada 95 definition will only come up as the language
>gets implemented.

Ouch!  Jeez, Mats.  Robert is one of those guys who eats, sleeps, and
breathes Ada (if I recall correctly, he also has a somewhat annoying
habit of quiting chapter, section, and paragraph from memory :-).

While I think your statement holds a kernel of truth, I'm very
inclined to believe Robert's comments (of course, that doesn't stop
me from prying into different parts of the language to see what's
broken :-)


--
      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.)
		if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada   :-)