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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!jordan
From: jordan@aero.org (Larry M. Jordan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 9X Mapping
Message-ID: <1991May9.182448.21081@aero.org>
Date: 9 May 91 18:24:48 GMT
References: <jls.671848656@rutabaga> <72071@microsoft.UUCP> <1991May9.055530.1516@netcom.COM>
Sender: news@aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jim Showalter says:
>...What IS claimed is that if you pull a listing at random from a
>pile of C programs and listing at random from a pile of Ada programs
>programs and compare them, the smart money bet is that the Ada program
>is better engineered.

In theory I agree with this.  In practice, gained from two large
DoD funded efforts, this is not yet the case.  I've seen many
thousands of lines of poorly engineered Ada.  It is refreshing to
find that textbook example of a generic, but it is rare.