From: Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: comment: Ada 83-95
Date: 29 Aug 2003 12:58:25 -0400
Date: 2003-08-29T17:00:29+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <uwucwtn7y.fsf@nasa.gov> (raw)
In-Reply-To: BIW2b.271586$Ho3.36153@sccrnsc03
Tom Moran <tmoran@acm.org> writes:
> I recently needed to write some utilities to run under 16 bit MSDOS
> (for data recovery of a badly damaged W2K NTFS disk), so I dug out an
> antique PC-AT class computer and used its Ada 83 compiler.
> I was surprised by the importance of some of the "little changes"
> in Ada 95 vs 83 like declaration order requirements, mixing named and
> "others" in aggregate assignments, limited 'image, and, of course,
> "use type".
Yes, Ada 95 is a much better language than Ada 83, in lots of little
ways as well as the obvious big ones. But, you can compile almost all
Ada 83 source with an Ada 95 compiler. I think that's a remarkable
achievement by the Ada 95 team!
--
-- Stephe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-29 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-27 4:46 comment: Ada 83-95 Tom Moran
2003-08-29 16:58 ` Stephen Leake [this message]
2003-08-29 18:40 ` Stephane Richard
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox