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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).