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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:8d8e:: with SMTP id
 p136-v6mr5086127iod.32.1526612272027;
        Thu, 17 May 2018 19:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:70d1:: with SMTP id w17-v6mr59937otj.5.1526612271917;
 Thu, 17 May 2018 19:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!news.redatomik.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!85.12.16.68.MISMATCH!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!u74-v6no1213602itb.0!news-out.google.com!f20-v6ni1216itd.0!nntp.google.com!v8-v6no1231665itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 19:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87fu2psqpj.fsf@nightsong.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2a02:c7d:3c35:b000:325a:3aff:fe0f:37a5;
 posting-account=L2-UcQkAAAAfd_BqbeNHs3XeM0jTXloS
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:c7d:3c35:b000:325a:3aff:fe0f:37a5
References: <6420bab2-0aef-4d36-b978-525e4de45e7e@googlegroups.com>
 <aed23075-1271-4e2c-b5f2-8da705e1a73e@googlegroups.com>
 <a86dc533-a8f5-4d1c-9b4c-11d7963c6d15@googlegroups.com>
 <pdkrvk$n53$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <1559505943.548291689.457576.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
 <87fu2psqpj.fsf@nightsong.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <300fd624-72a0-4171-90dc-49ad5df4fa21@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: meaningfully/compellingly "advertising" Ada on StackOverflow
From: Lucretia <laguest9000@googlemail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 02:57:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2379
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3743722029
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52417
Date: 2018-05-17T19:57:51-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, 18 May 2018 02:22:17 UTC+1, Paul Rubin  wrote:
> Luke A. Guest <> writes:
> > The aim is to see how languages stack up. By using the standard
> > containers with their anti-tampering and other checks, you would be
> > hobbling Ada in this case.
>=20
> Ummph, the anti-tampering and other checks are part of Ada's safety
> which is its main compelling feature.  If you turn them off then Ada no
> longer brings any benefit compared with unsafe languages.

You don't get the point I made. That "benchmark" is to see how fast differe=
nt languages go using the same algorithm, without using any safety features=
. If you hobble Ada by including them, you will make people think it's real=
ly slow. It's not about the safety features. Do you get it now?