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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-21 11:41:00 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language
Date: 21 Feb 2003 11:41:00 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <20619edc.0302211140.c6b492f@posting.google.com>
References: <nRg1a.190899$HG.32437469@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>
 <3E51ABCE.5491B9A2@adaworks.com> <b2spe6$p23$1@helle.btinternet.com>
 <3E5273DE.2050206@cox.net> <3E531E6F.BDFB2599@adaworks.com>
 <3E546C45.4010406@cox.net> <3E54F926.441D5BB5@adaworks.com>
 <1045763933.848350@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <42EA55F4BE83950E.F1DA277C2FDC157B.C804C1C52FE95D65@lp.airnews.net>
 <1045769690.126389@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <f2rb5v8020kkvq6tsf0uqg91pfbk9errs7@4ax.com>
 <1045839419.823502@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.245.217.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1045856460 15007 127.0.0.1 (21 Feb 2003 19:41:00
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Feb 2003 19:41:00 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4399 comp.lang.ada:34369
Date: 2003-02-21T19:41:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<1045839419.823502@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>...
> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> > Should it mean that an unability to create a perfect code (a thing I
> > never saw) in one language excuses any design fault of another?
> 
> Nope. I'm just objecting to "If it broke, and it's C++, it's the
> language's fault. If it broke, and it's Ada, it's the programmer's
> fault."

No, no, no!  If it broke, and it's C++, it's the language's fault AND
the programmer's fault.  If it broke and it's Ada, it's management's
fault.  ;-)

Hmmm, add management in the C++ case too...