Re: Happy Birthday, Ada!

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> wrote in message 
news:n4f3fs$osm$2@dont-email.me...
> 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.)

I agree with Jeff, but it pretty much no longer matters, 'cause people on 
the bleeding edge are using Ada 2012, and everyone else is using Ada 95. 
Outside of the ACATS and language lawyer stuff, I never mention Ada 2007, er 
Ada 2005.

                                  Randy.