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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV!larry
From: larry@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Criticism of Ada
Message-ID: <881121144228.1a27@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 21 Nov 88 22:42:28 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Can we all agree not to waste time and space on the recent attack on Ada 
posted from the C++ news group?  None of the points are new, several are 
flatly wrong, all the rest have been intelligently rebutted here at least 
half a dozen times.

This is not meant to denigrate C++ itself.  As a C enthusiast who well knows 
its problems, I'm very happy with Bjarne Stroustrup's work.  I recommend C++ 
to other C programmers who've matured enough to want something better than C,
and to the increasingly fewer project managers who're still afraid of Ada.

Nor is this meant to fend off suggested improvements of Ada inspired by C++, 
Objective C, Eiffel, SmallTalk, or whatever.  But I refuse to listen to 
anyone who doesn't understand that nothing is perfect and that design 
decisions ALWAYS involve trade-offs.
                                         Larry @ VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV