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: bda4de328f,e67cdb1dcad3c668
X-Google-Attributes: gidbda4de328f,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!195.208.113.67.MISMATCH!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>
       <4bed3524$0$67490$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <4bef48fb$11$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <4bf10c9c$0$89663$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4bf114cf$4$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered  "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 20:09:37 +1000
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
Message-ID: <4bf115ea$0$89664$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.163.128.12
X-Trace: 1274090987 exi-reader.telstra.net 89664 58.163.128.12:1054
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:11685 comp.lang.fortran:25691
 comp.lang.pl1:1336
Date: 2010-05-17T20:09:37+10:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4bf114cf$4$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
| In <4bf10c9c$0$89663$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 05/17/2010
|   at 07:23 PM, "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> said:
|
| >It's another example of an algorithm that was first implemented in a
| >language other than Algol
|
| K3wl, David. Why do you persist in debunking claims that nobody has
| made while ignoring the actual issues in dispute?
|
| >So, the correct answer is therefore "yes".
|
| Unfortunately it's the answer to a question that nobody asked.

Go back and look at the postings.  You will find that it is.

| It's not the correct answer to what you actually posted.

You are mistaken. What side of the bed did you get out of this morning?

| >To be sure, I know what machine code is.
|
| The evidence suggests otherwise.
|
| >I used the term in the general sense.
|
| The "general sense" would have been machine language on more than just
| the 704. Pointing to assembler code as an example of machine language
| just makes you look less than Frank.
|
| >Here, the intent was to point out that the algorithm was not first
| >implemented in Algol.
|
| Which is totally irrelevant to the issues in dispute.

Which it isn't.  See above.