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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.224.42.141 with SMTP id s13mr6272714qae.3.1367972325416;
        Tue, 07 May 2013 17:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.50.153.41 with SMTP id vd9mr764991igb.9.1367972325212; Tue,
 07 May 2013 17:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!l3no3326462qak.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni19295qax.0!nntp.google.com!m7no3371012qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 17:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <kmbohm$elb$1@loke.gir.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=69.20.190.126;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126
References: <op.wv8jh1c1ule2fv@cardamome> <op.wwbvqzkeule2fv@cardamome>
 <op.wwnp2zkrule2fv@cardamome> <u3jaslg5kca7.1gk5ds3d4sx2y$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwnsmtteule2fv@cardamome> <17ceq51ydy3s0.s94miqqzbg5w.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwny5jerule2fv@cardamome> <1vrhb7oc4qbob$.q02vuouyovp5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwn4oak8ule2fv@cardamome> <19lrzzbgm77v6.1dzpgqckptaj6.dlg@40tude.net>
 <kmbohm$elb$1@loke.gir.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5613a69d-6efb-4687-969b-8309f1e9a4a1@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 00:18:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:15419
Date: 2013-05-07T17:18:44-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 2:35:01 PM UTC-6, Jacob Sparre Andersen news wrote:
> 
> OTOH, that doesn't mean that a complete overhaul of Ada (but keeping most of 
> its core principles intact) wouldn't be a good idea. The main thing is that 
> the result most certainly would not be Ada, but rather would be a new 
> language *inspired by* Ada. (That might even be a good thing, as it would 
> allow Ada-haters to take an unbiased look without realizing Ada was 
> involved.) If such a language had clear advantages over Ada 2012 (and few or 
> no clear disadvanatges), it would be likely that many Ada users would make 
> the switch.
> 
> But obviously this is a tough road; the language has to be designed and a 
> reference implementation built before it is likely that there would be many 
> customers. Whether such a model could be managed is hard to say, especially 
> in terms of funding.

Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves don't we need RFPs for [working-name] Project Babbage first?