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
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a8985ede8fe3d111
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-20 15:08:28 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!world!blanket.mitre.org!linus.mitre.org!linus!mbunix!eachus
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Child packages
Date: 20 Oct 94 17:08:27
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Message-ID: <EACHUS.94Oct20170827@spectre.mitre.org>
References: <1994Oct4.090807@di.epfl.ch> <38496c$1l1@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
	<385thq$kh6@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
	<EACHUS.94Oct20110915@spectre.mitre.org>
	<386eru$8m7@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: spectre.mitre.org
In-reply-to: bketcham@u.washington.edu's message of 20 Oct 1994 19:02:22 GMT
Date: 1994-10-20T17:08:27+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <386eru$8m7@nntp1.u.washington.edu> bketcham@u.washington.edu (Benjamin Ketcham) writes:

 > Wait, I thought the benefit of Ada (even Ada 83, which is, after
 > all, still the only validated standard, isn't it?) was that you
 > didn't *need* to "update old code to new standards" because the
 > standard was so safe and readable and mission-critical and a
 > whole bunch of other things that supposedly justify paying ten
 > times as much up front, because it will last ten times as long
 > and maintenance costs will be lower and so you'll save money in
 > the long run and....

 > So which is it?  Will the "problem" "disappear relatively quickly"
 > because all that "legacy" Ada code that was supposed to last 1000
 > years now needs to be changed to the Even Better, Enhanced, Last
 > Language You'll Ever Need (And This Time, We Mean It) standard?
 > Or will the "problem" be hanging around for *decades* because all
 > that yucky Old-Style Ada 83 just keeps going, and going, and....

   The particular situation I was discussing involved legacy code,
which didn't need to be changed to compile to meet the new standards.
The code was then extended using Ada 9X features.  The "problem" I was
addressing was not the in the old code, or the new code, but educating
programmers about the new features.  If someone wants to use Ada 83
techniques forever, God Bless.  But if a program or a programmer wants
to start using the new features, it is up to us to let them know where
the potential pitfalls are so they never have to fall in.

 > <picture your favourite emoticon here>

   Okay ;-)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...