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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,c9d5fc258548b22a
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:57:04 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?
References: 
 <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <4d52ee47$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <e1076cab-2a7e-4762-acf4-80bf807614bf@n16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5306a0$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <76c123ab-7425-44d8-b26d-b2b41a9aa42b@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5310ab$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <9bff52ca-6213-41da-8fa4-3a4cdd8086d3@y36g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5315c8$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <159dca70-2103-46d7-beb2-c7754d30fe36@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
 <4d53222d$0$18057$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <bc7802fb-0184-437b-b0fa-9ba0ff260c04@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
 <4d540714$0$27423$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <e491f5ad-ae17-42fd-9412-f457d32ac217@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5423b9$0$27423$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <867afa64-090f-48bf-93a3-54ec23b51381@f18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <4d555f9a$0$27376$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <op.vqq4yar1lzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.vqq4yar1lzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4d558688$0$27376$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1da5c17a.usenet-news.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=FA16YMo;HW<=\CAd^eO]5=^oXGM_6\KV0mX0AG3X_jU?WonLZPGF:d=VjKk:Lk^BN1cR12TN^Bg7>L=<PNCjPL;1Ob:Tjk=RUd4
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet-news.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17249
Date: 2011-02-11T13:57:04-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2/11/2011 1:43 PM, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
>> Actually, Ada has the more severe problem here, because Ada
>> makes it easy to declare objects on the stack which are sized
>> based on the values of subprogram parameters, while C and C++
>> do not.
>
> ÀFAIK, at least C99 supports dynamic arrays.

Fortunately, no one uses C99.

In general, I believe that language designs reach a point of
stability beyond which they should not be changed, just replaced.
They have their original version, they get one good overhaul
which fixes obvious problems, and then they're pretty much done.
Later changes tend to be ignored. We'll see how Ada '12 goes :-).