Should there be a link in the main page for the ARG

Site Feedback
1

Hi all,

here is a quick question regarding the landing page of Ada-Lang. Should we have a link (at the top) for the Ada Rapporteur Group website?

Since it is the official group that develops Ada as an standard, I think it should have presence in Ada-Lang. Also I think it is valuable to have links to the meetings that they have ARG Minutes Index and probably the community feedback page Issues · Ada-Rapporteur-Group/User-Community-Input · GitHub

What is your opinion? Pinging @sttaft as a well-known member of the ARG.

Best regards,
Fer

4 Likes
2

In general the landing page needs to be reworked somehow to directly indicate it is a community site, not an official site, as I’ve received that complaint a few times.

1 Like
3

Cross linking certainly makes sense. There are several different sites of interest at this point, including a relatively new site:

https://ada-rapporteur-group.github.io/

where we have begun to put copies of the ARM to reduce dependence on ada-auth.org, which might be going away at some point in the next year or so.

1 Like
4

Please add the material to previous Ada standards to https://ada-rapporteur-group.github.io/ as well.

5

That is our intent. We just haven’t gotten there yet.

3 Likes
6

What’s the difference between https://ada-rapporteur-group.github.io/ and the adaic version (Ada Rapporteur Group)?

7

Would be nice to have indications as what’s different between Ada 2022 and 202y.

8

I really hope it’s not Ada 202y and that it’s really Ada 203y. It’s super nice to work in a language that’s relatively stable and gives time to understand the effects of new changes.

9

Welcome in club. I stay by Ada 95/2005. There are few things I do miss dearly, e.g. SPARK and stuff like atomic primitives.

10

Just as a notice, @pyj added a link to the ARG in a PR! So I set this issue/forum post to a “solved” status :slight_smile:

Just my two cents as a random internet user, who could be a dog (reference to an internet joke), Maybe you could create a V5 of your Components library which would be Ada 2022. V4 could go into maintenance or a 95/05 copy of 2022. And of course, you do not have to use all the new additions to the language if you do not like them. Just use what you like, which is something that I love about Ada ^^

Edit: reduce by one the proposed/current version of Simple Components.

11

One of the problems is legacy 32-bit systems. They simply have no Ada 2022 available.

P.S. It is not that I dislike new features, I find most of them hacks. The problems must have been addressed on the type system level, IMO. But that is another story for another day.

12

I’m not against language evolution, I just like it at a reasonable pace.

One release standard per decade seems reasonable. A few years for compiler writers to implement it, a few years for real projects to use it in practice and give feedback while the language folks try out new ideas, and then a few years to edit the ideas and feedback into a new standard.

Aspects in particular, are a beautiful and elegant solution to “How do you annotate additional metadata without it getting in the way?” They’re very orthogonal to the base set of concepts, as explained in my FOSDEM talk (slides).

1 Like