From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!sdd .hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!gdt!aber!btk@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Benjamin Thomas Ketteridge)
Subject: Not Ashamed To Use Ada! (was: Re: More Ashamedness of Ada)
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:35:20 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1992Nov19.113520.7485@aber.ac.uk> (raw)
In article <112@fedfil.UUCP>, Ted Holden writes:
> You wouldn't expect them to write anything that complex in a goof language
> like Ada, would you?
I would have prefered to have responded to your article by email, but you don't
appear to have a personal address.
If you're saying this kind of thing about Ada, why do you bother reading/writin
g
to comp.lang.ada?
For your information, of the 3 or 4 Ada compilers I have used,
the DEC one is the only one where the main program is in C, and, if I guess rig
ht,
the reason for that design choice by DEC is so that they can use 'ld' to load a
nd
bind the executables - why re-invent the wheel?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| _|--|_ | Disclaimer: I know nothing! Do you really know anything? |
| (\/) +-------------------------------+---------------------------+
| vv | We've a Gremlin in the works! | btk@aber.ac.uk |
+--------------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+
reply other threads:[~1992-11-19 11:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox