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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!io.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How to get Ada to "cross the chasm"?
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 15:50:12 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <pcqe65$hnh$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <1c73f159-eae4-4ae7-a348-03964b007197@googlegroups.com>
 <effa585e-7f43-44f9-9462-f92bab803119@googlegroups.com>
 <94bd81e5-2ef5-41a2-973a-72f2ba4cecd1@googlegroups.com>
 <pcirg4$pbi$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <721a01f5-569a-4cec-b0e9-62d19e1443fb@googlegroups.com>
 <431526826.547202380.696445.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
Injection-Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 20:50:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="18161"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52073
Date: 2018-05-07T15:50:12-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Luke A. Guest" <laguest@archeia.com> wrote in message 
news:431526826.547202380.696445.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org...
> Dan'l Miller <> wrote:
>>
>> Wow!  That AI would be a big part of causing Ada2020 to cross the chasm.
>> The only portion that I wholeheartedly disagree with is:  !priority
>> Very_Low.  Ada2020 needs this AI and task safety.
>
> I have to agree with this, this should be a high priority imo. Especially
> since everyone and their dogs are jumping on the Rust bandwagon, this 
> could
> shut them up.

It got priority Very_Low because it was very late, it's very large, and it 
is not in the primary scope of Ada 2020 (as described by our WG 9 
instructions). The "very large" part means that we'd have to delay Ada 2020 
several years to properly vet this policy.

I'm trying to look for a radical simplification, as we managed with subpools 
and other proposals that were originally gigantic. Otherwise, we'll have no 
choice but to delay Ada 2020 or defer it. (My opinion only on this, it's 
never been discussed in a meeting.)

                                Randy.