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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,267eec8ad557a7d0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Theodore E. Dennison" <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: Re: ARIANE-5 Failure (DC-X works)
Date: 1996/06/12
Message-ID: <31BEB6FB.41C67EA6@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 159833817
references: <834097751.22632.0@assen.demon.co.uk>
 <4pd540$rl2@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <4pd7qc$kp2@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
 <dewar.834287759@schonberg> <4pg9gj$ohs@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
 <dewar.834410609@schonberg>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m)
Date: 1996-06-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> generated code from such a tool is Ada. In fact if this generated code
> is not maintained or looked at, there is absolutely no reason for it
> to be in Ada, and no particular advantage in it being in Ada. The

I can't really fault your logic in this post, with the exception of the
above statement. Given the reams of well-nigh unreadable code generated
by tools such as a GUI builder, I'd much prefer the generation is done
into a language with safety features like array bounds checking. For me,
this is reason enough to have the code generated in Ada.

And no, this doesn't really dillute your overall argument much. Its just
a nit.

-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |