Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

[Lance Kibblewhite]

In article <1994Oct7.181343.9070@sei.cmu.edu>, adanews@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Ada Information Clearinghouse) writes:
>*****************************************************************
>            ATTENTION Ada 95 VENDORS AND DEVELOPERS!
>*****************************************************************
>DATELINE:  October 7, 1994
>
>The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Center for Standards
>would like to invite your participation in the finalization of an
>Ada 95 Mapping to the Object Management Group's Common Object
>Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) Interface Design Language
>(IDL). 
>      
>MITRE and Objective Interface Systems (OIS) have developed a draft
>Ada 95 mapping document and are preparing implementations based on
 ^^^^^^
>the mapping.  The ACM SIGAda Bindings Working Group is preparing an
>Ada 83 mapping that will be compatible with the Ada 95 mapping. 
 ^^^^^^

So is "Ada 95" more 'correct' then "Ada 94"?

-- Lance.

Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

[Tucker Taft]

In article <37haa0$baf@scoop.eco.twg.com>,
Lance Kibblewhite <lance@eco.twg.com> wrote:
> ...
>So is "Ada 95" more 'correct' then "Ada 94"?

Not particularly.  The Ada community can call the new revision
of Ada anything they want ;-).  Note that "new" Fortran is called
Fortran 90, even though it was well after Dec. 31, 1990 when
it became a standard.  

Personally, I still like Ada 9X -- it seems a little flashier
than Ada 94 or Ada 95 (though of course Windows 95 is giving
some cache' to Ada 95 -- NOT).

In any case, to answer your question more seriously, the most "correct"
name will reflect the date that ISO assigns to it, based on when they
officially publish it.  Ada 9X is almost certain to be "approved"
as an International Standard during 1994 (in November), but
it is not clear exactly how long it will take the wheels of ISO
to crank out the official publication of the new Standard.

The "full" ISO designation will either be ISO/IEC 8652:1994
or ISO/IEC 8652:1995, depending on the RPM of their wheels.
The ANSI designation will be ANSI/ISO 8652:199?

>-- Lance.

S. Tucker Taft    stt@inmet.com
Ada 9X Mapping/Revision Team
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138

Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

[Dave McAllister]

I personally like the 9X designation. In fact, I went 'on record' in 1992 at the 
Ada/Australia conference that 9X should be left as the designation. 

If he products are solid and timely, why dump all the coverage hte 9X name has
today?

Dave McAllister

-- 
Product Manager, Compilers
Silicon Graphics, Inc

*SHINDO - the ART of the MIND*

Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

[Robert Dewar]

I also vote in favor of retaining 9X!

By the way, how many people know that Ada 83 should really be called Ada 87
(I guess there is some country out there in the New World that thinks the
standardization happened in 1993, but I see no reason for the world
community to pay any attention to local affairs of that kind).

Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

[David Weller]

In article <37k3bp$2sf@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>I also vote in favor of retaining 9X!
>

	Other names:
	Fortran++
	Simula++
	Modula-10
	Pascal-Beyond-Borland
	B-- (a little better than a C++ :-)
	A++ (a LOT better than a C++ :-)
	Ada Warp 2.0  (What th' heck -- IBM can do it!)
	Or, for you hardcore history buffs...
		Plankalkul 2000

I'm not so sure Ada 9X is such a great name though.  I remember
discussing Ada 9X a few years ago to some managers.  I looked down
and saw one of them in the front row had blithely written:

	Ada Nynex.

*Sigh*
Sometimes you'd wish they'd look at the slides :-)

-- 
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2)        ||This is not your
   	      Ada -- Very Cool.  Doesn't Suck.               ||  father's Ada 
For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command:   ||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
   ObNitPick: Spelling Ada as ADA is like spelling C++ as CPLUSPLUS. :-) 

Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

[Richard Kenner]

In article <37knhj$t17@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes:
>I'm not so sure Ada 9X is such a great name though.  I remember
>discussing Ada 9X a few years ago to some managers.  I looked down
>and saw one of them in the front row had blithely written:
>
>	Ada Nynex.

The first dozen or so times I heard mention of "The 9X Project" at
NYU, I always heard it as "The NYNEX project" too.

Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

[ncohen]

Subject: Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

In article <CxMAr6.EFD@odin.corp.sgi.com>, davemc@shindo.esd.sgi.com
(Dave McAllister) writes: 

|> I personally like the 9X designation. In fact, I went 'on record' in 1992 at the
|> Ada/Australia conference that 9X should be left as the designation.
|>
|> If he products are solid and timely, why dump all the coverage hte 9X name has
|> today?

I've been telling non-Ada people about Ada 9X for years, only to be
dismissed with "Well, that's still a long way off."  (It was the same
reaction Bjarne Stroustrup objected to when he complained about people
treating the ANSI extensions to C++ as "science fiction.")  When I refer
instead to the features offered by Ada 94, people tend to take it more
seriously as a viable option and a tangible reality.  (The existence of
GNAT certainly helps in this regard!)

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com

Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994

[Norman H. Cohen]

In article <CxMAr6.EFD@odin.corp.sgi.com>, davemc@shindo.esd.sgi.com
(Dave McAllister) writes: 

|> I personally like the 9X designation. In fact, I went 'on record' in 1992 at the
|> Ada/Australia conference that 9X should be left as the designation.
|>
|> If he products are solid and timely, why dump all the coverage hte 9X name has
|> today?

I've been telling non-Ada people about Ada 9X for years, only to be
dismissed with "Well, that's still a long way off."  (It was the same
reaction Bjarne Stroustrup objected to when he complained about people
treating the ANSI extensions to C++ as "science fiction.")  When I refer
instead to the features offered by Ada 94, people tend to take it more
seriously as a viable option and a tangible reality.  (The existence of
GNAT certainly helps in this regard!)

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com