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-Thread: 103376,6609c40f81b32989 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,9bdec20bcc7f3687 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Thread: 101deb,e67cdb1dcad3c668 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,gid8d3408f8c3,gidbda4de328f,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!exi-transit.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!exi-spool.telstra.net!exi-reader.telstra.net!not-for-mail From: "robin" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1 References: <4bb9c72c$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <4bba8bf1$0$56418$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4bbb2246$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <4bbb5386$0$56422$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4bbbc752$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> <4bc5a414$0$78577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> <4bc6e4c8$3$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net> Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:10:18 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Message-ID: <4bc72c60$0$78575$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.135.105.64 X-Trace: 1271344224 exi-reader.telstra.net 78575 149.135.105.64:1053 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9994 comp.lang.fortran:22420 comp.lang.pl1:1143 Date: 2010-04-16T01:10:18+10:00 List-Id: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote in message news:4bc6e4c8$3$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net... | In <4bc5a414$0$78577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/14/2010 | at 07:32 PM, "robin" said: | | >I already pointed out that important algorithms were first written in | >machine code in the 1950s | | I know what you claimed; you have neither substantiated it On the contrary, I substantiated it twice.