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 10.182.246.39 with SMTP id xt7mr329458obc.40.1386761841934;
 Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:37:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.182.125.70 with SMTP id mo6mr8799obb.22.1386761841776; Wed,
 11 Dec 2013 03:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.113.MISMATCH!peer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!p15no18901143qaj.0!news-out.google.com!p7ni14989qat.0!nntp.google.com!p15no18901135qaj.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:37:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <l886to$9f2$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=109.149.1.116;
 posting-account=pmkN8QoAAAAtIhXRUfydb0SCISnwaeyg
NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.149.1.116
References: <b5b51d8f-6659-47e3-bddf-a4d5f6a771cc@googlegroups.com>
 <lybo0s6bu2.fsf@pushface.org>
 <1d445f04-b670-444f-9858-55da271fe17a@googlegroups.com>
 <ly7gbg60mp.fsf@pushface.org>
 <a4cf1ea7-d5a2-4bd4-9637-51f6a92996ec@googlegroups.com>
 <lywqjf45za.fsf@pushface.org> <l86cra$e10$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <2b6dc37f-4aa6-4c18-be59-8c09f6f37f01@googlegroups.com>
 <l8829j$cs6$1@loke.gir.dk> <l886to$9f2$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <fdf3a8cf-3f3e-40a5-b8db-311385544097@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Binary versus text and compiler versions, was: Re: Will Ada-95
 Programs Written in MS Windows Run in MacOS and Linux Without Some Tweaking.
From: Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:37:21 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 4385
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1911447664
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:184180
Date: 2013-12-11T03:37:21-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:08:40 PM UTC, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2013-12-10, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote: > > But if I =
was writing this sort of code, I wouldn't worry about line endings > at all=
, and simply encrypt the file as binary data, using Stream_IO to read > it =
in and out. > Thank you. That's one of a number of things I don't understan=
d about this. A serious encryption tool is going to treat the input as a op=
aque stream of bytes not as text. I don't encrypt pure text, but I _do_ enc=
rypt full directory trees which may have a mixture of text and binary files=
 within them. I don't understand how someone who claims to have invented so=
mething new cannot realise this. And to the OP: while I can certainly under=
stand the desire to remain with Ada 95,=20


<what I don't understand is why you insist on using such a specific version=
 <from a range of long obsolete compiler versions. Can you explain your <re=
asoning ? Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-<Eart=
h.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Hi Simon,

The gnat 311.p compiler happens to be the one that I use to develop my ciph=
er program source code in my three ciphers over 10 years ago. =20

There is nothing binding about a compiler =96 if it works leave it alone un=
less you can benefit from the attributes of revised versions in 2013 there =
is no point in trying to improve on what you=92ve got - each download, sale=
 or whatever of my software comes with a gnat 311.p compiler provided ready=
 for installing at the click of a mouse and is certain to work  =96 in pass=
ing this compiler loads like a treat in Windows XP, Vista, 7,& 8. =20

There is nothing decadent about using an older compiler.  This compiler wor=
ks even better than recent updated (revised) versions of the Ada language s=
o there is no criticism that can be made on the back of being an older vers=
ion.  There is no benefit whatever in using more recent compilers and as yo=
u can see it even leads to the trouble being discussed here.

It is not anachronistic to use an old compiler. =20

=95The =91C=92 language is still being used to write important components o=
f systems and see how old that is.

Compilers in my understanding are updated solely so as to incorporate bette=
r ways of doing known criteria or of introducing totally fresh methods but =
if you don=92t need these why change from what you=92ve got?

The only downside of my scheme of disseminating my software with the same c=
opied compiler in every case is that the compiler number is the same every =
time but is that an exploitable defect =96 No way do think so!

I hope this answers your question.

Austin