Re: comment: Ada 83-95

["Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1001 bytes --]

I have to agree Steph :-)

-- 
St�phane Richard
Senior Software and Technology Supervisor
http://www.totalweb-inc.com
For all your hosting and related needs
"Stephen Leake" <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:uwucwtn7y.fsf@nasa.gov...
> Tom Moran <tmoran@acm.org> writes:
>
> > I recently needed to write some utilities to run under 16 bit MSDOS
> > (for data recovery of a badly damaged W2K NTFS disk), so I dug out an
> > antique PC-AT class computer and used its Ada 83 compiler.
> >    I was surprised by the importance of some of the "little changes"
> > in Ada 95 vs 83 like declaration order requirements, mixing named and
> > "others" in aggregate assignments, limited 'image, and, of course,
> > "use type".
>
> Yes, Ada 95 is a much better language than Ada 83, in lots of little
> ways as well as the obvious big ones. But, you can compile almost all
> Ada 83 source with an Ada 95 compiler. I think that's a remarkable
> achievement by the Ada 95 team!
>
> -- 
> -- Stephe