Re: Lets split

[agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc. ti.com!mksol!mccall@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (fred j mccall 575-3539)]

In <62879@mimsy.umd.edu> alex@cs.umd.edu (Alex Blakemore) writes:

>In article <BzCs15.B28@gdls.CSCTMD.COM> tarcea@gdls.CSCTMD.COM (Glenn Tarcea) 
writes:
>>   Can we please stay on the topic of discussing Ada, and Ada in
>> real-world systems. All languages have their strengths and weaknesses
>> and I am tired of hearing religous comparisons of why either Ada is
>> better than language X or language X is better than Ada. Maybe a news
>> group called comp.lang.religion should be started for these stupid discussio
ns. 

>good posting, but how about a real division-

>make comp.lang.ada obsolete and create a small set of groups instead.

>  some suggestions

>    comp.lang.advocacy   - for the flame wars
>    comp.lang.programmer - for discussions of design/development Ada language 
issues
>                           (or comp.lang.technical or better name?)
>    comp.lang.announce   - moderated, low volume important announcements
>                           of meetings, products, standards, new mandates :) e
tc
>    comp.lang.misc       - catch all

Uh, I think you're probably going to have some problems getting this
past all the other language groups, since it seems to assume that
'comp.lang.programmer' assumes Ada.  Now, I can't speak for anyone
else, but I'm SURE I've programmed computers in other languages
besides Ada.

Now, I might vote for a comp.lang.announce, but I don't know that I
would want someone dedicated to ANY language 'moderating' it.  Once
again, it assumes that 'comp.lang' equates to 'comp.lang.ada'.  I
suspect this is a real bad assumption.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.