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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because...
Date: 1996/06/23
Message-ID: <4qjddi$26e@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 161685595
references: <4q8fbo$701@red.interact.net.au>
 	<874508446wnr@t-cubed.demon.co.uk> <nhk9wzovx7.fsf@paralysys>
organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne
newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


>   From: jont@t-cubed.demon.co.uk (Jon Taylor)
>
>   I suspect the reasons Ada is not more popular than it rightly
>   deserves are (amongst others) :-
>
>   b) Validated Ada compilers are not cheap.  Using gnat is just not
>      good enought for a commercial system.

If an unvalidated C compiler is good enough for a commercial system,
why wouldn't an unvalidated Ada compiler be good enough?

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.