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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,78d7c50699ab69a4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-11 08:21:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3BC5B8CE.4BEC5C1A@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: wwgrol@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,es-MX,es,pt,fr-CA,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Gratuitous bashing ? References: <3BC46184.F88496A8@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9q1rhq$gjl$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BC47929.A22F574A@san.rr.com> <9q20on$ipa$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BC4B520.A16D415F@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9q4710$mgi$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:20:46 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1002813686 151.168.144.162 (Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:21:26 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:21:26 CDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14274 Date: 2001-10-11T10:20:46-05:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > O.K. I'll accept that story. However, that sounds more like Necessity being > the Mother of Invention. (Or is it Necessity Is The Mother Of Futile Dodges > :-) In either case, it doesn't sound like somebody said: "Since we have to > program STBs, let's design a language that is suited to STB software > development..." That seems different than "Lets use a subset of C because we > are having trouble with full-up C... Hey wait a minute! This is a new > language!!!!" I left out the part where they did add some OO features (with as little true engineering as the rest of it). I also left out my own observation that they did _not_ remove some bad features of C because, being more experienced, they did not have as many problems with those features. They also removed _good_ features "because they are unsafe" which Ada and other languages had already proven can be done safely. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau