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><m2tyrnjc5f.fsf@pushface.org><4bbdf5c6$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net><f5a9304e-e6eb-40b2-8944-a6ca4bc92b1b@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com><4c0a2e36$0$34205$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net><4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net><hugevn02qfb@news5.newsguy.com>
 <m2k4qc3y0r.fsf@pushface.org>
 <4c0cc11d$0$56569$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4c0e1652$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:54:29 +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: <4c10c472$0$56577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.163.128.176
X-Trace: 1276167282 exi-reader.telstra.net 56577 58.163.128.176:1050
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11579 comp.lang.fortran:24343
 comp.lang.pl1:1473
Date: 2010-06-10T20:54:29+10:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4c0e1652$7$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
| In <4c0cc11d$0$56569$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 06/07/2010
|   at 07:38 PM, "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> said:
|
| >Anyway, the point I was making was that the programs
| >were run before the March 1953 Symposium,
| >and that the programs preceded FORTRAN, and preceded ALGOL.
|
| Neither ALGOL nor FORTRAN was the first programming language.

Everyone knows that.

But your point is irrelevant.
The question was whether or not it was written in Algol first.
And CLEARLY they weren't.