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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fca456da8e6ec463 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-29 15:21:13 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!btnet-peer1!btnet-peer0!btnet-peer!btnet!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: kopilovitch@my-deja.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:05:36 GMT Organization: Deja.com Message-ID: <954svq$mt1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <94p9fl$a1g$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <94qbb4$bs1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <94rkj1$d4r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <87k87i2ha7.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <94vnup$kia$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.242.18.27 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 29 23:05:36 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x59.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 195.242.18.27 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDkopilovitch Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4676 Date: 2001-01-29T23:05:36+00:00 List-Id: I think that Robert Dewar's propaganda of Shakespeare is sufficiently relevant to the Ada language. Just because it reflects some mental attitude(s) of at least one of the most active designers and supporters of Ada language. I invite the Usenet-police-callers to observe that Ada Reference Manual and Rationale aren't, after all, self-organized and self-developing creatures. I see some significance in the facts that one of the most active real supporters of Ada - Robert Dewar - promotes Shakespeare, and at the same time, author of the best books about Delphi - Ray Lischner - maintains a website dedicated to Shakespeare. By the way, Robert, maybe you will help me in one problem of that sort: I decided to reread Ecclesiastes, and this time to read it in English (a long ago I read it in Russian). But when I went to www.gospelcom.net/bible, I saw there 7 (!) different translations of Ecclesiastes: New International Version King James Version New American Standard Bible Revised Standard Version Darby Translation Young's Literal Translation New King James Version Which version do you recommend? Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/