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,b3d4bf1aa8fddd02
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: ada2cpp
Date: 2000/01/28
Message-ID: <86t40h$qql$1@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 579027313
References: <20000109121316.27085.00001168@ng-bg1.aol.com>
 <86s1sc$1ei$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <s93a1sm9q0s153@corp.supernews.com>
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
X-Server-Date: 28 Jan 2000 22:08:17 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-01-28T22:08:17+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <s93a1sm9q0s153@corp.supernews.com>,
	"Pat Rogers" <progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote:

>For some unusual situation, fine.  But for the fad chasers, IMHO a
>product that requires stupidity on the part of management is both sad
>and very likely to wildly succeed.

Pat.  There are a lot of stupid C++ chasers out there.  I have even
been told by one manager that [paraphrasing] "Ada is probably a better
language, but we have to move to C++ so we can hire programmers and find
tools."  Anyone who would choose C++ over Ada in the pursuit of reliable
software either 1) does not understand C++ or 2) does not understand Ada,
or 3) does not understand either one, or 3) has agenda that has nothing to
do with technological excellence.

Richard Riehle
richard@adaworks.com