comment: Ada 83-95

comment: Ada 83-95

[Tom Moran]

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".

Re: comment: Ada 83-95

[Stephen Leake]

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

Re: comment: Ada 83-95

[Stephane Richard]

[-- 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