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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seas.gwu.edu!mfeldman
From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: "silly" (?) Ada semantics
Message-ID: <1943@sparko.gwu.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 90 14:32:20 GMT
References: <1919@sparko.gwu.edu> <644579683.25696@minster.york.ac.uk> <1936@sparko.gwu.edu> <EACHUS.90Jun6182703@aries.linus.mitre.org>
Reply-To: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu ()
Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C.
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Thanks to Robert Eachus for giving just the authoritative and sensible
answer I was hoping for. IMHO it's important for language-bashers to
realize that the designers and proponents of the language they are bashing
are neither stupid nor juvenile. Obviously we will not all agree on the       
desirability of a certain way of doing a certain feature - computer folks
are the most disputatious group I know - but it is unfair and juvenile
not to at least give the designers and proponents credit for having
thought it through. Just when I get so discouraged by the flame wars
that I'm ready to swear off reading the news, I see something that
reconfirms the mature and helpful side of it. It's these little "hits"
of good stuff that keep my addiction going. Thanks again.