Re: The disturbing myth of Eiffel portability

[dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

Regarding names of languages:

"When one says ``C++'', which version of C++ is implied? The one with or
without namespaces? The one with or without exception handling? And when
one says ``Smalltalk''? And which version of ``FORTRAN'' is current? And
nnwhen someone writes ``Ada is an OO language'', one should understand
that phrase wrt Ada [83] or Ada 95? What about Pascal? Pascal (either
1st or 2nd edition), or ISO Pascal? And the differences between C and
ANSI C, and the (unnamed) C-like subset of ``C++''?"

  These are not similar questions. Some specific comments:

    The name of the language is Algol 68, not Algol, so unless you casually
    use incorrect names no confusion arises. I never heard anyone in the
    Algol community use the phrase Algol to refer to Algol 68.

    Fortran (thus spelled, it has not been spelled in caps for 20 years!)
    is a standardized language, so presumably one is referring to the latest
    standard of that name when using the term, but still in any serious
    discussion, it should be qualified, especially since more than one
    standard is current (an unusual situation).

    Ada unqualified always refers to Ada 95. The official name of the 
    language is Ada, and the new standard for Ada obsoletes the old one.
    When in doubt, it is certainly fine, but unnecessary to say Ada 95,
    but it is ALWAYS necessary to say Ada 83 when referring to the
    obsolete version of the language.

    Pascal is trickier because of the nasty situation that the ISO and
    ANSI sdtandards are not in sync.

    As for non-standardized languages like Eiffel and C++, the situation
    is indeed trickier. I would say it is reasonable to assume that C++
    unadorned refers to the draft international standard. Certainly at
    this stage C++ does include namespaces and exception handling. Some
    implementations may not, but we are talking languages here!