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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,eebbadd7557faf6f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)
Subject: Re: The return of Ada95
Date: 1996/03/18
Message-ID: <4ikcaa$cl6@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143679797
distribution: world
references: <00001a73+00002b8c@msn.com>
organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <00001a73+00002b8c@msn.com>, KMays@msn.com (Kenneth Mays) writes: 

|> Talking with many programmers, you can write VERY tight code with
|> C/C++ and play with pointers and registers (bit level) very easy. I'm
|> sure you can find a way to do it in Ada95, but its concept wasn't
|> designed for it.

Efficient low-level programming and systems programming were very much a
design consideration for Ada 95.  Have you looked at modular types,
Section 13, or the Systems Programming Annex?

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com