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: 103376,7b3c720a19fbb26f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dvdeug@x8b4e53cd. (David Starner)
Subject: Re: What Mac developers think of Ada !
Date: 1999/10/30
Message-ID: <7vfhvu$8201@news.cis.okstate.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 542517818
References: <381A0466.2137859E@mbox5.singnet.com.sg>
 <01bf22b0$4b8bb9e0$022a6282@dieppe>
Organization: Oklahoma State University
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-10-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 30 Oct 1999 08:23:39 GMT, Pascal Obry <pascal_obry@csi.com> wrote:
>Ok, Ada is huge and there is maybe more chances to have bugs in the
>compiler. 
I'm not sure this is fair. Compared with the languages that were popular
in '83, sure, Ada was a little large. (C is a small language, and the
Pascals and BASICs of the time were small.) It's smaller than C++, currently
a popular language. The compiler frontend would be simpler than Fortran 90.
Java maybe fairly small, but the standard library is huge and growing.
And compared to implemented languages? Anyone take a look at GNU Pascal
recently? Visual Basic? 

--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org