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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!snorkelwacker!spdcc!merk!alliant!linus!eachus From: eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Language Revision Cycle Message-ID: Date: 21 Mar 90 22:59:51 GMT References: <8423@hubcap.clemson.edu> Sender: news@linus.UUCP Organization: The Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA In-reply-to: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu's message of 18 Mar 90 07:52:05 GMT List-Id: In article <8423@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) writes: > From eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus): > > My current guess (not my preferences, just a guess as to what > > will happen) is that the first revision will be a very minor one... > What would be the rationale for deferring evolution another 5 years? Gee, I thought I said that this is what I think will happen, not what I want. Our town did some things at last week's town meeting that I didn't like (and some that I did). I could usually call the vote well before it occured, but 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. There is a groundswell developing to fix a few small things NOW, and leave the rest til later. (Of course, not everybody agrees on the "few small things." :-) > It seems to me that it is at least as important to modernize software > technology as it is to modernize hardware technology (e.g., aircraft)! No disagreement. > Five years from now is plenty of time to get an extremely strong > proposal together. If Ada *will* be open to such a change in > five years, then it will find itself very well-positioned to > enter the next century. But what about the five years between > now and then? 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. :-) -- Robert I. Eachus with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...