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,ee41f292779851e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-23 07:44:03 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!gw1.att.com!csn!ncar!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news.mathworks.com!news2.near.net!emerald.tufts.edu!blanket.mitre.org!linus.mitre.org!spectre!emery From: emery@goldfinger.mitre.org (David Emery) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada explanation? Date: 23 Jan 1995 15:44:03 GMT Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. Message-ID: References: <9501181627.AA19623@eurocontrol.de> <3fnhgv$4mh@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <3fsiv3$mtg@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <3g0567$g3@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: goldfinger.mitre.org In-reply-to: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM's message of 23 Jan 1995 05:50:31 -0600 Date: 1995-01-23T15:44:03+00:00 List-Id: >The truth of the matter is the ISO standardization process of both >languages is similar: both are on the fast track, both were open to >public review There's a slightly misleading statement here. Neither Ada95 nor C++ are using the 'fast track' ISO/IEC JTC1 proceedures. Both languages have ISO working groups (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 for Ada and SC22/WG20(?) for C++). Both language standards are proceeding through the normal ISO review cycle, including committee drafts, DIS and IS ballots. dave -- --The preceeding opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of --The MITRE Corporation or its sponsors. -- "A good plan violently executed -NOW- is better than a perfect plan -- next week" George Patton -- "Any damn fool can write a plan. It's the execution that gets you -- all screwed up" James Hollingsworth -------------------------------------------------------------------------