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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,319ef0454c7765d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Versions of Ada (was Why no exception hierarchy ?)
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <dewar.797289082@gnat>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070428
references: <3ksv4s$f9e@news.uni-c.dk>
 <gauthier-2403951115540001@164.81.60.62>
  <3lurur$esb@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com> <1995Apr6.071721.9590@eisner.decus.org>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I absolutely agree that we should not turn up our noses at any user of Ada,
whatever version they are using!

What we need to avoid is the now quite common occurrence where some use
of an Ada-83 compiler asks a question about "Ada", and several people
give what turn out to be unhelpful assumptions that Ada 95 is involved.

Example:

 Someone using Dec Ada on a VAX under VMS: How do I read command line
	parameters.

 Several helpful responses that turn out not so helpful: No problem use
	the Ada.Command.Line package

equally if the questioner is indeed an Ada 95 user, then it is not very
helpful for someone to write an answer:

  Well on the VAX is use (some strange Dec dependent stuff). Hope that
	helps! (but of course it doesn't help at all)

So we can probably all agree on the need to encourage everyone to 
distinguish between Ada 83 and Ada 95. Clearly from this interchange,
it is going to cause confusion to use just Ada if we are talking
technical issues.