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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:a30a:: with SMTP id
 m10-v6mr5012277ioe.28.1526610529794;
        Thu, 17 May 2018 19:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:830:: with SMTP id 45-v6mr54636oty.7.1526610529667;
 Thu, 17 May 2018 19:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!paganini.bofh.team!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!v8-v6no1217401itc.0!news-out.google.com!f20-v6ni1216itd.0!nntp.google.com!v8-v6no1217398itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 19:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87fu2psqpj.fsf@nightsong.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=47.185.233.194;
 posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194
References: <6420bab2-0aef-4d36-b978-525e4de45e7e@googlegroups.com>
 <aed23075-1271-4e2c-b5f2-8da705e1a73e@googlegroups.com>
 <a86dc533-a8f5-4d1c-9b4c-11d7963c6d15@googlegroups.com>
 <pdkrvk$n53$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <1559505943.548291689.457576.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
 <87fu2psqpj.fsf@nightsong.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8a90d70a-c137-4540-9428-1e200a99b650@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: meaningfully/compellingly "advertising" Ada on StackOverflow
From: "Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 02:28:49 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52416
Date: 2018-05-17T19:28:49-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 8:22:17 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Luke A. Guest writes:
> > The aim is to see how languages stack up. By using the standard
> > containers with their anti-tampering and other checks, you would be
> > hobbling Ada in this case.
>=20
> Ummph, the anti-tampering and other checks are part of Ada's safety
> which is its main compelling feature.  If you turn them off then Ada no
> longer brings any benefit compared with unsafe languages.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, up to a point.  Perhaps the maintainer =
of that repository can be persuaded that Ada deserves 2 rows for 2 differen=
t implementation tracks:
1) one design with full-fledged safety
and
2) one design with no-holds-barred anything-goes-that's-legal unchecked_*-f=
eatures-galore pursuant to speed-of-execution.

It would be interesting not only comparing those 2 rows to other correspond=
ing safe or unsafe languages, but also to each other:  Ada-purist versus Ad=
a-ecumenical.  He seems to be emphasizing some definition of =E2=80=9Cna=C3=
=AFve=E2=80=9D though.  One or the other of these dual tracks for Ada might=
 fly in the face of his definition of =E2=80=9Cna=C3=AFve=E2=80=9D.