* Ada 200X?
@ 1998-07-25 0:00 jlvojir1
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jlvojir1 @ 1998-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pfk
Excuse me sire,
I ran acrosssome articles that you have writen in the Ada news
group. I am purchasing books on the subject and having previous
experience with C/C++ I hope to make the conversion painlessly and join
your elit group, but a comment you said in your letter confused me.
Using the term "Ada 200x" I have never heard of this proposed standard
your where you just saying that whenever the next standard appears that
the team should add this. I want to learn the newest Ada standard, the
notion that another standard is sneaking up just after I have invested
money and time in this venture and then be left behind with old news.
Please help to clarify --a hopefully newbie Joshua
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada 200X?
1998-07-25 0:00 Ada 200X? jlvojir1
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
@ 1998-07-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1998-07-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
<< I ran acrosssome articles that you have writen in the Ada news
group. I am purchasing books on the subject and having previous
experience with C/C++ I hope to make the conversion painlessly and join
your elit group, but a comment you said in your letter confused me.
Using the term "Ada 200x" I have never heard of this proposed standard
your where you just saying that whenever the next standard appears that
the team should add this. I want to learn the newest Ada standard, the
notion that another standard is sneaking up just after I have invested
money and time in this venture and then be left behind with old news.
Please help to clarify --a hopefully newbie Joshua
>>
The term Ada 200x is actually a rather misleading term, which would be better
avoided to remove the understandable confusion that its use causes.
The term is nothing more than a convenient macro for "a possible future
development of a future version of Ada". The name is chosen by analogy with
the Ada 9x project, but in fact there is no Ada 200x project, nor any kind
of formal, or even semi-organized informal activity that is directed to
revising the Ada standard.
The Ada 95 is the current Ada standard, and will be for a long time to come, so
that is what you should study!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada 200X?
1998-07-25 0:00 Ada 200X? jlvojir1
@ 1998-07-26 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-07-27 0:00 ` dennison
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Brian Rogoff @ 1998-07-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, jlvojir1 wrote:
> Excuse me sire,
Yikes, that is way too formal! There are no royals on c.l.a. Ada is a
language for the people.
> I ran acrosssome articles that you have writen in the Ada news
> group. I am purchasing books on the subject and having previous
> experience with C/C++ I hope to make the conversion painlessly and join
> your elit group, but a comment you said in your letter confused me.
Ada programmers elite? Nahh, we're really salt-of-the-earth types, you
know, two fisted keyboard ticklers bangin' out code at high speed.
> Using the term "Ada 200x" I have never heard of this proposed standard
> your where you just saying that whenever the next standard appears that
> the team should add this.
Ada 200X is a shorthand for whatever we want added in to the current
standard. There is no Ada 200X, no secret cabal (like the ML-2000 group)
working on it. If and when there really is an Ada 200X project, you'll
know about it, and it will conduct its work in public. It has already been
mentioned here that there probably will not be a project of the magnitude
of the Ada 9X project, though I imagine that there are some fairly minor
issues like the "withing problem" (sorry for calling it minor jgv :-) that
will probably be addressed at some point in the near future.
>I want to learn the newest Ada standard, the
That would be ANSI/ISO/IEC-8652:1995.
> notion that another standard is sneaking up just after I have invested
> money and time in this venture and then be left behind with old news.
Time spent learning Ada 95 is not wasted. Even if there was a new standard
coming in 7 years, it would have to be upwardly compatible.
I hope this helps.
-- Brian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada 200X?
1998-07-25 0:00 Ada 200X? jlvojir1
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
@ 1998-07-26 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Heaney @ 1998-07-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
jlvojir1 <jlvojir1@gte.net> writes:
> I ran acrosssome articles that you have writen in the Ada news
> group. I am purchasing books on the subject and having previous
> experience with C/C++ I hope to make the conversion painlessly and join
> your elit group, but a comment you said in your letter confused me.
> Using the term "Ada 200x" I have never heard of this proposed standard
> your where you just saying that whenever the next standard appears that
> the team should add this. I want to learn the newest Ada standard, the
> notion that another standard is sneaking up just after I have invested
> money and time in this venture and then be left behind with old news.
The most recent version of Ada was approved as an international standard
in Feb 95. There is no such thing as "Ada 200x".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada 200X?
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
@ 1998-07-27 0:00 ` dennison
1998-07-27 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: dennison @ 1998-07-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <Pine.BSF.3.96.980726154435.1891A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, jlvojir1 wrote:
> > Excuse me sire,
>
> Yikes, that is way too formal! There are no royals on c.l.a. Ada is a
> language for the people.
Actually, I thought I heard somewhere that Robert Dewar had been knighted. It
just goes to show what a down-to-earth guy he is that he doesn't isist we
refer to him as "Sir Robert". But "sire" would, of course, be appropriate for
addressing a person of his station. :-)
I'm not sure I'd want to be his squire though. It would probably be a rather
boring job, consisting mostly of refilling his coffee cup and recharging the
batteries on his laptop computer.
T.E.D.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada 200X?
1998-07-27 0:00 ` dennison
@ 1998-07-27 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Brian Rogoff @ 1998-07-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jul 1998, jlvojir1 wrote:
> > > Excuse me sire,
> >
> > Yikes, that is way too formal! There are no royals on c.l.a. Ada is a
> > language for the people.
>
> Actually, I thought I heard somewhere that Robert Dewar had been knighted. It
> just goes to show what a down-to-earth guy he is that he doesn't isist we
> refer to him as "Sir Robert". But "sire" would, of course, be appropriate for
> addressing a person of his station. :-)
Considering that he is one of GNATs sires, thats quite true! However,
since he is at a U.S. university, the royal title would be quite
meaningless.
> I'm not sure I'd want to be his squire though. It would probably be a rather
> boring job, consisting mostly of refilling his coffee cup and recharging the
> batteries on his laptop computer.
Actually, I am envious of his squires/students. When I was in college,
I didn't have professors in my CS classes whose software engineering
knowledge was very great, and I have been told by lots of other
programmers that this is common. I hope his students appreciate their
good fortune!
-- Brian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1998-07-27 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1998-07-25 0:00 Ada 200X? jlvojir1
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-07-27 0:00 ` dennison
1998-07-27 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-07-26 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox