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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fd6dd,c78177ec2e61f4ac X-Google-Attributes: gidfd6dd,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,c78177ec2e61f4ac X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "John G. Volan" Subject: Re: ada and robots Date: 1997/06/22 Message-ID: <33AE10C8.314B@sprintmail.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 251942410 References: <338CDA96.53EA@halcyon.com> <338F5D7D.6C03@tiac.net> <338F9D05.5EB3@bix.com> <5mqpj3$bc5$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <33930245.12A1@sprintmail.com> <5mv984$7kn@news.emi.com> <33A5D644.37A3@epix.net> <33A7427F.6646@epix.net> Organization: Sprint Internet Passport Reply-To: johnvolan@sprintmail.com Newsgroups: comp.robotics.misc,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon S Anthony wrote: > > In article <33A7427F.6646@epix.net> "Matthew S. Whiting" writes: > > I'm not sure which is worse, the ignorance of many C > > and C++ programmers or the arrogance of many Ada programmers... > > Good question. Arrogance is certainly more annoying while ignorance > is much more frustrating and difficult to work through. Probably a > wash... Ignorance is far worse than arrogance. According to the ancient Greeks, arrogance (i.e., hubris) sooner or later destines you to a tragic downfall (i.e., "tragic" in the classical sense of "due to a flaw in your own character"). Whereas, "against ignorance, the gods themselves contend in vain." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature (Name => "John G. Volan", Employer => "Texas Instruments Advanced C3I Systems, San Jose, CA", Work_Email => "jvolan@ti.com", Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com", Slogan => "Ada95: World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL", Disclaimer => "My employer never defined these opinions, so using" & "them would be totally erroneous ... or is that" & "just nondeterministic behavior now? :-) "); ------------------------------------------------------------------------