From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:35:20 GMT
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)
Message-ID: <1992Nov19.113520.7485@aber.ac.uk>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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       |
+--------------+-------------------------------+---------------------------+