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!news1.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" <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>
       <4bc97500$0$78577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <4bcb3e14$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <4bcfaa84$0$895$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4bd01e14$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered  "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:20:10 +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: <4bd04d0f$0$905$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.135.104.132
X-Trace: 1271942415 exi-reader.telstra.net 905 149.135.104.132:1044
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10133 comp.lang.fortran:22606
 comp.lang.pl1:1164
Date: 2010-04-22T23:20:10+10:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4bd01e14$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
| In <4bcfaa84$0$895$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/22/2010
|   at 11:39 AM, "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> said:
|
| >You're wrong on both counts.
|
| 1. You have not addressed the question of whether Algol was used
|    to develop algorithms. Even had you *shown* that other languages
|    had been used earlier or more often, that would have not addrssed
|    the issue in dispute.

That is irrelevant.  It is not what I claimed.

| 2. You cited a book describing multiple algorithms; you refused to
|    identify specific algorithms about which you were making claims.

What don't you understand about the word "Programme"?
It is a computer program.

"General Interpretive Programme" is the name of the program,
and also, incidentally, the name of a book.