From: munnari.oz.au!ariel!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!brt.deakin.edu.au!dougcc@tcg ould.tn.cornell.edu (Douglas Miller)
Subject: Re: Ada's (in)visibility
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:21:24 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1992Sep29.152124.8143@brt.deakin.edu.au> (raw)
In article <244.237.uupcb@nitelog.com>, michael.hagerty@nitelog.com
(Michael Hagerty) writes:
> The most coneheaded response I've heard to the question, "Why didn't you
> do it in Ada, the mandated language?" was, "We had to be compatible with
> X-windows,
I suppose their documentation for Xlib calls used C syntax, so they think
this means they have to use C? Coneheaded indeed.
> It seems that all the excuses are like a**holes; everyone has one and
> they all stink...
How true...
next reply other threads:[~1992-09-29 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1992-09-29 20:21 munnari.oz.au!ariel!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!brt.deakin.edu.au!dougcc [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1992-10-04 13:08 Ada's (in)visibility Thomas N Erickson
1992-10-02 6:34 cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!goodsenj
1992-10-01 14:57 David Emery
1992-10-01 7:17 Dag Bruck
1992-09-30 16:31 David Emery
1992-09-30 13:54 Larry Maturo
1992-09-28 18:29 Dag Bruck
1992-09-27 20:48 Mic hael Hagerty
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox