Re: Happy Birthday, Ada!

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>]

On 12/11/2015 12:51 AM, J-P. Rosen wrote:
>>
> This has been discussed at the time. The standard was ready for
> submission (and available in Gnat) in December 2005, and it would not
> have made sense to name it in the future.

Nonsense. I wasn't involved with Ada at the time, but ARM-83 was published on
1983 Feb 17, so it was most likely ready for submission in 1982, but we don't
call it Ada 82. It made sense to name it in the future. ARM-95 was ready for
submission in 1994, but we don't call it Ada 94. It made sense to name it in the
future. There would have been no more inconvenience in using Ada 0X until
publication, at which time we'd have called it Ada 07, than there was in using
Ada 9X until publication, at which time we called it Ada 95.

(I know of only one person who was inconvenienced by not knowing the name of 9X
in advance of publication, and while I owe him my understanding of information
hiding, I don't consider one person's inconvenience enough to warrant that
ridiculous and confusing name for ISO/IEC 8652:2007.)

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I like it when the support group complains that they have
insufficient data on mean time to repair bugs in Ada software."
Robert I. Eachus
91