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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9d5fc258548b22a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews7.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:27:09 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?
References: 
 <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <8r86vgFc3uU1@mid.individual.net> <iimrem$udn$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <19fh1chm74f9.11cws0j5bckze.dlg@40tude.net>
 <fa33fca1-c95b-4558-8a4c-7b3276366ffc@m13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <4d4ff70e$0$6886$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <737a6396-72bd-4a1e-8895-7d50f287960e@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5008a5$0$6879$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <eda00084-fcc3-416c-bd3e-8b9e9c1a4b40@o13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <4d5031fe$0$6765$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <1f229967-d3cf-42b6-8087-c97ee08652f3@i40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <4d51169e$0$7657$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <db60098c-2569-4efb-aa81-253ba53686b4@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <iis37l$t09$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <4d51905c$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <36212a7b-deab-45d9-ac45-aa29cd90c7bc@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <36212a7b-deab-45d9-ac45-aa29cd90c7bc@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d51a7bb$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ccadfecb.usenet-news.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=I0V>45O4Igog?khj1KkY_dQFZ3T]GPM]gmX0AG3X_jUoHL[6Z1g^FC`VjKk:Lk^BNacR12TN^Bg7n:KNd2lZeh5li1WZZ``>cDd
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet-news.net
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:17998
Date: 2011-02-08T15:27:09-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2/8/2011 3:11 PM, Shark8 wrote:
> No, that's not it. What is 'it' is that the C programmers  treated
 > Ada as if it were C and the result was, as expected, bad Ada.

It is my understanding that Ada proponents believe that
using Ada results in better programs than using C. But
when presented with a program written in Ada that is not
demonstrably better, that program is removed from the set
of Ada programs under consideration by virtue of having
been written by "C people". That is precisely the "no true
Scotsman" fallacy.

> The reverse is less true, I think. If you give an Ada  Programmer
 > a "must do" in C, AND he applied the theory/ideology of Ada
 > {specifically contract enforcement & rejection/culling of bad
 > values}, then the result would NOT be "bad C"... would it?

In other words, training in a certain style of programming leads
to better programs. Sure, that's plausible.