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: 10261c,90121986704b5776
X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776
X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
From: Bob Horvath <bob@horvath.com>
Subject: Re: Yet another stupid language war (was: ... the only languages you
 need!!)
Date: 1997/10/30
Message-ID: <345947D2.D20EF8E9@horvath.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 286084988
References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com>
 <3456e71b.3833189@news.mindspring.com>
 <MPG.ec1256665b68f1b98979d@news.primenet.com>
 <3458D116.2D34@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> <63anc7$75p$1@darla.visi.com>
Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc
Date: 1997-10-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Peter Seebach wrote:

> In article <3458D116.2D34@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>,
> W. Wesley Groleau x4923 <wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> wrote:
> >Consider the languages you are comparing to (see newsgroups line)
> >that's a pretty ignorant claim.  Ada is the most portable of the above
> >languages.
>
> But only to the systems it's available for.  If you talk about code
> being portable to all implementations, great, but there are still
> systems which have C compilers, but no Ada.

I have heard of an Ada to Java bytecode compiler, so now I guess you can have
Ada everywhere!

> Java is intended to produce executables and programs which are portable
> across all implementations; this does not necessarily make it a widely
> portable language.

I don't understand this statement.

> >C and C++ were partly designed and partly thrown
> >together to support whatever thing the few people involved thought was
> >cool at the time.
>
> Speak for C++.  :)  C has a bit of history, but is really fairly
> consistent.  :)

Hmmmm.  How big is an int?