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: f849b,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public
X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public
X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
Date: 1999/01/21
Message-ID: <916962713.14158.0.nnrp-01.c2decf94@news.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 435418147
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: caldo.demon.co.uk:194.222.207.148
References: <m3k8yhy6fe.fsf@fred.muc.de>
 <F5x5Dw.5tH.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 916962713 nnrp-01:14158 NO-IDENT
 caldo.demon.co.uk:194.222.207.148
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Date: 1999-01-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

i know several non-validated C compilers that are vastly more reliable
than several validated Ada compilers, so let's have fewer snide
remarks about the importance of being validated.