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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,dde8c867aae4e4dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: ACM Computing Surveys obsolete
Date: 1996/07/30
Message-ID: <4tkump$3e8@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171019294
distribution: world
references: <4ta2iu$oru@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
x-xxmessage-id: <AE243C8131011B17@obibicut.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Peter Hermann writes:

"I could not believe it: The issue March'96 (!) of ACM Computing Surveys
 contains an article on page 245-247 with the promising title
 "Progress in Programming Languages" by Kim B. Bruce (kim@cs.williams.edu)

 The state of knowledge is of around the year 1990+-2.
 The author is talking ia lot about ancient Ada83 but obviously 
 never heard about Ada95, an international standard ISO8652-1995-February.
 There are 7 references with the youngest from 1993.
 What a progress!"

...and while not quite in the same league, have a look at the
Feb '96 acm sigplan article on programming language comparisons.
It uses Ada83 as the comparison language, and more importantly,
(IMHO) confuses the concepts of package and type.  !:-/

Dale