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: ichbiah@jdi.tiac.net (Jean D. Ichbiah)
Subject: Re: Ada means what version by default ?
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <ichbiah.280.2F856EEB@jdi.tiac.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070388
references: <3ksv4s$f9e@news.uni-c.dk> <1995Mar28.115614.9511@eisner>
 <3ls5sb$nl8@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <1995Apr4.210804.9579@eisner.decus.org>
 <3lv3g2$eek@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <1995Apr6.072906.9591@eisner.decus.org>
organization: JDI Technology, Inc.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1995Apr6.072906.9591@eisner.decus.org> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

>Even if every vendor past and present were to instantaneously release an
>Ada 95 compiler, being the commercial money-grubbing capitalists that they
>are :-), they would probably charge for it.  Not every user can afford to
>buy a new compiler[...]

The cost of the compiler is but the tip of the iceberg: if you are running
a project of a million line or so, you are likely to have baselined your
compiler and the cost of changing (and confronting 95 incompatibilities)
could very well be several order of magnitude higher than the
compiler costs.

>So there are lots of non-technical reasons to use Ada 83 for many years.

For example, the fact that a given target may be used for your project, have
a decent Ada compiler, but be insufficiently present on the market to entice
any vendor to supply a 95 compiler.


Jean D. Ichbiah