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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bbd8958c3e2ec19a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-29 09:58:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: comment: Ada 83-95 Date: 29 Aug 2003 12:58:25 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1062176429 3257 128.183.235.92 (29 Aug 2003 17:00:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Aug 2003 17:00:29 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41949 Date: 2003-08-29T17:00:29+00:00 List-Id: Tom Moran 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