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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,85034d1ac78a66eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-25 16:48:28 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Operating System
Date: 25 Feb 2002 18:48:24 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <3EmHiaQBK0gY@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <a4u9d00vqe@enews2.newsguy.com>
 <5Tzc8.111999$H37.15018616@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
 <slrna75lja.g7h.hugues@neraka.rezel.enst.fr> <a4uqu402315@enews2.newsguy.com>
 <ee19489.0202200647.3a45bc32@posting.google.com> <3C73F480.5010806@mail.com>
 <a533vq$sts$1@knossos.btinternet.com>
 <5ee5b646.0202221911.3b96252a@posting.google.com>
 <a572f3023tj@enews2.newsguy.com> <8nH9bwDSZjm1@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <a5dgc4$khi$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1014684505 20861 192.135.80.34 (26 Feb 2002
 00:48:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:48:25 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20416
Date: 2002-02-25T18:48:24-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <a5dgc4$khi$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:
> Its probably important to once again note that just because something is
> written in C doesn't automatically mean that it *must* be buggy and
> unreliable. The correct contention for Ada to make is that it is just harder
> and more expensive to get there with C. Much like it is possible to produce
> a correctly spelled document with a word processor that lacks a
> spell-checker. You can get there quicker and with less cost by using one
> that does - but without it, its still possible to correct all the spelling
> errors.

You must have a better spell-checker than the one I got from Bill.