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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6609c40f81b32989
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.nethere.com!news.nethere.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:00:14 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
From: csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:00:10 -0700
Message-ID: <1jgxk5s.eca2y0dahpfqN%csampson@inetworld.net>
References: <hp95j8$i29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <2b3e186c-de89-4a92-9465-556889ef1c20@n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.1004132024240.3668@Bluewhite64.example.net>
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.2 (Mac OS X version 10.4.11 (PPC))
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-lA9YR59FObYZnsqrxyE0nBYlQ8gqidxpIjyEuP2sBt0xPt175zq1Wyen2fOP+eAhO8d3x6KPK+crvLl!UMlYjEL0nAoo0l+vwtMW9cbg06ll56/8APsl58u9EAqB6bY6TzDgebs1UXHyOcdtMc/S55RYsI42!akYsh40RJ9WYw6Bo+e+yvK5JYI0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@nethere.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@nethere.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:10955
Date: 2010-04-14T09:00:10-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Andrea Taverna suggested:
> 
> |-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |----- "On 4 Apr, 06:46, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
> | <rant> 
> | The only true reason for which Ada or other languages aren't used is, as
> | you said, the amount of available software directly usable in those
> | languages, which depends on the popularity of the language itself,
> | which, in turn, depends on the ease with which the language can be
> | implemented in popular architectures (x86 PC). This more or less dates
> | back to Unix and C being the ultimate computer viruses (cfr. "The Unix
> | Haters Handbook") ... </rant>"
> |-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |-----
> 
> No. Someone who works predominantly as something else (such as a
> physicist) lacks the confidence; time; motivation; background;
> understanding; and skills to waste time learning another language. It
> would be better that the one language which an incidental programmer did
> not become completely scared of was Ada, but few incidental programmers
> would be taught such a good language to begin with, and few incidental
> programmers will try a second language.

     I agree with the point of your response but not your choice of
words.  Most of us here would not use the phrase "waste time to learn
another language [Ada]."  :-)

                        Charlie
-- 
All the world's a stage, and most 
of us are desperately unrehearsed.  Sean O'Casey