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,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!hplabs!hao!noao!arizona!megaron!robert
From: robert@megaron.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Not really unsigned and not trash.
Message-ID: <961@megaron.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Mar-86 10:11:48 EST
Article-I.D.: megaron.961
Posted: Thu Mar 27 10:11:48 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Apr-86 04:29:34 EST
References: <8603250724.AA13526@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Dept of CS, U of Arizona, Tucson
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

N.B.  I mailed this to the original flamer, but it came back
undeliverable.  Not imagining anyone else would be interested
in cluttering up the place with discussing it I felt that mail
would was best.  But since several have responded, I am resending
my reply.  Perhaps we can move this to net.flame or wherever?

To those who flamed about a little lightheartedness mixed in with
what was still a serious comment, could it be that you are hiding
from what you really found offensive in that message.  But I'll
honor your concerns by addressing the things you mentioned first.

- - start of my old mail message
I am that person whose message you found offensive.  There was no
attempt to send anything out unsigned; I had thought the note
was sent out with my signature appended.

Contraceptives prevent conception, whether it is the conception of
human life or the conception of ideas.  With two years of personally
using Ada and seeing a dozen other diligent and intelligent programmers
striving to conceive and then being thwarted in their efforts by the
language, I certainly  stand by the poetic license that I took.

And the word "screw" has no definition in my dictionary relating to
fornication and in the manner it was used, it is a slang term meaning
"I have little concern for what you may be trying to impose on me." 
If I were offended by the mere mention of sex, then you were
the one mentioning it and I should be the one taking umbrage.
What I really find utterly ammusing, is that fornication refers to
sex between UNMARRIED couples; in seeing your reference to the
word, I stop taking you seriously.

What really concerns me is that you might have found my negative
attitude toward the government offensive, ignored that in your
letter, and then found something else to jump at.  If that is
the case, perhaps you may like my help in coming to grips with
your problem?

Note that this is mailed and not in the news, since it seems to
have been something personal with you.


Sincerely,
Robert J. Drabek
- - end of my old mail message

   Since this seems to have gotten bigger than I would have imagined from 
mature and intelligent people, I would like to add a couple more comments.

   First, I am not inexperienced in Ada.  As a member of the
team which has developed one of the largest running projects yet
written in Ada, a product which has broken both the DEC and Data
General compilers over and over, I probably have a better feeling for
the language than most.

   Yes, I even like a lot of features, but little in the
language is revolutionary (uh, oh, I hope the mention of
revolution doesn't offend any radical right wingers); almost every-
thing in the language has been tried or experimented with for the
last thirty years.  I teach a course in "Comparative Programming
Languages" here and allocate portions of the semester trying to
sincerely show the Ada's features and then let them draw their
own conclusions.  While their conclusions are the conclusions of
innocents, they usually feel it is a verbose hodgepodge formed by
a committee who wanted it all but didn't know what all was available.

   Nothing is inherently bad in the language, but as my original
posting argued, with the turnover time to compile and link even
a simple program being exceedingly long, programmers tend not to
test as thoroughly, and more errors are passed through only to
be uncovered when it is too late.

   And since the military is trying to have software written in
this type of environment, and considering that they have the power,
NOT THE RIGHT, to destroy the rest of us through their stupidity,
then I have something to be concerned about and OFFENDED by. 

   Since this is obviously getting off the technical track,  I
would like to draw the discussion to an end.  
  
  If you have more to discuss on the subject, send me a
note personally, and please don't, as someone else here said,
get caught up in this and clutter up the net.

Again, sincerely,

Robert J. Drabek