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-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!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" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1
References: <hp95j8$i29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
       <4bb9c72c$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
       <pan.2010.04.05.20.51.46.20000@none.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>
       <4bc72c60$0$78575$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4bc7a92c$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered  "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:43:09 +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: <4bc97500$0$78577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.163.128.222
X-Trace: 1271493888 exi-reader.telstra.net 78577 58.163.128.222:1041
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10037 comp.lang.fortran:22476
 comp.lang.pl1:1150
Date: 2010-04-17T18:43:09+10:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4bc7a92c$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
| In <4bc72c60$0$78575$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/16/2010
|   at 01:10 AM, "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> said:
|
| >On the contrary, I substantiated it twice.
|
| No, you twice made totally irrelevant claims. Nothing that you have
| written has any bearing on whether algorithms were developed in Algol 60,
| and you haven't even substantiated the claim that important algorithms
| were *DEVELOPED*

Had you actually read what I wrote in my first post in this thread,
you would have comprehended that I said "first IMPLEMENTED in machine code"
(emphasis added).

And I twice substantiated my claim.