Re: Type casting question

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <83tdjp$hts$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  reason67@my-deja.com wrote:
> I will state for the record that Robert Dewar is
> smarter than Jeffrey Blatt.

This has nothing to do with who is smater than whom! It simply
is a convention we have followed in this newsgroup that we take
Ada to mean Ada as defined by the ISO/ANSI standard, and that
Ada 83, an obsolete language, needs to be labeled as such.

Part of the reason we take this veiwpoint is that to some extent
this is an advocacy newsgroup (there is no separate
comp.lang.ada.advocacy), and we want to make sure that everyone
realizes that Ada 83 is obsolete, and has been replaced (now
that the replacement is five years ago, and most Ada 83
compilers are no longer supported, that makes perfectly
reasonable sense).

Yes, we all understand that there are legacy systems using Ada
83, but it is interesting to note that DDCI, one of the last
vendors to be doing Ada 83 only, has recently validated Ada 95
compilers using the latest ACAATS tests (for which
congratulations are due, and it is definitely great to see a new
vendor joining the Ada 95 vendor industry, an industry where
competition is working well to improve the technology available
to Ada (95!) users.

In fact when people are using Ada 83, and ask how something is
to be done, it is always a good opportunity to point out that
what they are doing would be easier if they would not insist on
using an obsolete version of the language :-)

or, as often happens, they are are fact *using* Ada 95, but have
not learned how to use all the nice new features effectively!


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.