Re: Ada Language Revision Cycle

[wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Bill Wolfe)]

eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
> in many cases the votes were strongly
> influenced by people's attitude toward those who were the principal
> spokespeople for either side rather than any feature of the proposal
> itself.  The same thing seems to be happening on Ada 9X.  

   I hope that the 9X process will be sufficiently open to ensure
   that all proposals will be considered on their own merits -- this
   sounds a lot like the "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

>       It will probably take five years to get a good proposal
> together.  I also think that that is a minimum time to study some of
> these issues and come up with something that mixes cleanly with the
> existing language.  So by all means, start now, I started last year. :-)

   In that case, we should organize into a working group to consider the
   issues together rather than inefficiently duplicating our individual
   efforts.  Probably the best way to do that would be to form an ACM
   SIGAda Working Group.

   I will take the first step: forming a list of potential members.  If
   you, the reader, are interested in participating in a potential ACM
   SIGAda Object-Oriented Working Group, please modify the following
   prototype response as appropriate and E-mail it back:

   ------------------------ Prototype... Cut Here ---------------------

                  ACM SIGAda Object-Oriented Working Group

      Your Name:  William T. Wolfe                  Member ACM?     Yes
      E-mail:     wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu        Member SIGAda?  Yes
      Snailmail:  Department of Computer Science
                  Clemson University
                  Clemson, SC  29634-1906   USA

   ------------------------ Prototype... Cut Here ---------------------
      

   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu