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,d901a50a5adfec3c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,9f0bf354542633fd X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: "Marc A. Criley" Subject: Re: Fortran or Ada? Date: 1998/09/24 Message-ID: <360A3446.8AD84137@lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 394344124 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <36068E73.F0398C54@meca.polymtl.ca> <6u8r5o$aa4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Lockheed Martin M&DS Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jeff Templon wrote: > > 2) you have to be more careful since with a big language, it is > easier to make a mistake in writing the program which turns out > to be valid syntax for some feature you didn't know about. In 15 years of Ada programming I cannot recall a single instance of activating an unintended language feature through a syntax error. Certainly I have typoed "=" instead of "/=" or misarranged "end"s, but these are exactly mappable to errors in other procedural programming languages. I'm afrad this assertion betrays a lack of familiarity with the syntactic and semantic structure of Ada. > I would write some examples, but no time. Sorry. > > JAT [Robert Dewar mode on :-] It is unreasonable to expect anyone to accept your highly-contested assertions at face value, and cite "no time" as justification for not providing examples for peer review in defense of your point. [RD off] -- Marc A. Criley Chief Software Architect Lockheed Martin ATWCS marc.a.criley@lmco.com Phone: (610) 354-7861 Fax : (610) 354-7308