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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.50.26.65 with SMTP id j1mr1472509igg.7.1392307970646; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:12:50 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.138.199 with SMTP id qs7mr98167igb.4.1392307970520; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:12:50 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!uq10no19018349igb.0!news-out.google.com!h8ni1igy.0!nntp.google.com!uq10no19018340igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 08:12:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <19ac8735-7a9c-429f-a111-a1b3c4b0985b@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=KSa2aQoAAACOxnC0usBJYX8NE3x3a1Xq NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <19ac8735-7a9c-429f-a111-a1b3c4b0985b@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Differences between Ada 83 and other revisions From: adambeneschan@gmail.com Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:12:50 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:18524 Date: 2014-02-13T08:12:50-08:00 List-Id: On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:59:32 AM UTC-8, yoursurr...@gmail.com wrot= e: > Hello. I'm new to Ada, but I would like to get a slightly better underst= anding of the language. I like how the Ada compiler is so careful, somethi= ng I rarely see in other languages. >=20 > From what I've read and heard, Ada 83 compiler was very strict about what= type of code could be compiled and as a result made code that ran as progr= ammed most of the time. However, later revisions have weakened some of the= se rules for Ada 95 and onward. Is this true? No. There were some specific rules that were weakened in Ada 95; the one that c= omes to mind is that it's more lenient about array bound "sliding". Ada 95= is less strict about the order in which declarations appear. As for the implication that in Ada 83 "code ran as programmed most of the t= ime", while the changes in Ada 95 made this no longer true: that's simply n= onsense. If you've read something like this somewhere, I'd like to see a q= uote or a reference. It's possible you misunderstood what they were saying= , and it's also possible that somebody wrote something ridiculous because t= hey were upset about something. -- Adam