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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8623fab5750cd6aa X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshosting.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:13:27 -0400 From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Improving Ada's image - Was: 7E7 Flight Controls Electronics References: <40b9c99e$0$268$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk> <40ba315a$0$254$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk> <04udnR-eHNChzSbdRVn-vw@gbronline.com> <7J0xc.7371$8k4.269106@news20.bellglobal.com> <1086630278.542788@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <8xlxc.27603$sS2.845496@news20.bellglobal.com> <1086715817.122983@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1086733411.736049@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3Auxc.11998$XY6.1296622@read2.cgocable.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: KBC Financial Products Message-ID: <1086815607.602106@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10 X-Trace: 1086815607 11076 204.253.250.10 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1334 Date: 2004-06-09T17:13:27-04:00 List-Id: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > As far as rewriting BIND, why must you be critical of that. I am not critical about rewriting BIND in Ada. I think it's a great idea, because it would serve as a nice showcase for Ada's features. I was being critical about people who say that it should be rewritten simply because it is now written in C. Now, will this actually happen? Well, we'll see. > you are either hostile to Ada or you think what > we already have is "good enough" Neither. I am merely hostile to claims of how much better this program would be in Ada, if only someone would write it. I am also hostile to claims that C++ can be chosen only through stupidity. > And sometimes very unhappily... > How productive is it keeping your virus signatures up... Cars overheat, break down, get flat tires, wear out, need to be inspected, and need parts replaced. They have assorted design flaws that result in numerous recalls for repairs. That does not prevent millions of people from productively using them, and indeed loving them. As I keep saying, you cannot use vaporware as evidence for the superiority of your chosen language. Any version of Windows, no matter how error prone, is superior to the most perfect AdaOS if that doesn't exist. You keep saying - see this system written in C, look at its flaws. I say - show me a similar system written in Ada that lacks those flaws. > Everyone is concious of this fact (at least as far as > operating systems go). Hence the reason for "pining for > something to point to." ;-) I may be wrong, but even GNAT seems to serve as a counterexample. Every time someone breathes on the underlying GCC, it seems that GNAT stops working with it. > Was I "hectoring"? I thought I responding to some points and > counter-claims. Not you in particular. Just the general attitude here.