From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 28 Apr 91 21:51:39 GMT
From: microsoft!jamesth@uunet.uu.net  (James THIELE)
Subject: Re: Ada 9X Mapping
Message-ID: <72071@microsoft.UUCP>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <jls.671848656@rutabaga| jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
In article <???| ??? writes:
|>     I have not seen any discussion on the Ada 9X draft Mapping Document in
|>this group.
|
|>Or does everyone thinks it perfect? 8-)
|
|Well, personally I think it's overkill. The current documents are in 
|a very sketchy state, and they are already large. By the time they
|are transmuted into real modifications to the LRM, the LRM will be
|twice as large as it already is.

Just what the world needs, an LRM twice as large!

Probably trying to stay more convoluted than C++. :-)

I like any number of features in Ada and C++, but the languages have
gotten too complex.  I'm somewhat relieved to be back to C.

James Thiele
Disclaimer:
Nobody on this group thinks that a C program written by a great C programmer
could be better than an Ada programm written by a lousy Ada programmer.
I do, I know you don't, so don't bother flaming me.