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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-28 05:51:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Date: 28 Apr 2003 05:51:05 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <9fa75d42.0304280451.34afff75@posting.google.com> References: <9fa75d42.0304230439.55d28e70@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240503.54dbc5d1@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304240953.221ac70f@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304250448.5107afef@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0304252116.621a4bf4@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304260649.366530c5@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.97.239.23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1051534265 22679 127.0.0.1 (28 Apr 2003 12:51:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Apr 2003 12:51:05 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62831 comp.object:62170 comp.lang.ada:36684 misc.misc:13775 Date: 2003-04-28T12:51:05+00:00 List-Id: xanthian@well.com (Kent Paul Dolan) wrote in message news:... > softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) wrote: > > > No, I am serious. > > How sad for you then. > > > Many people who use computers today, simply wouldn't have been > > able to, 20 years ago. That's progress, exc[ep]t if you have > > a personal reason to say "no, it's not.". > > Except that you are revising history beyond recognition: the > vi() editor was written for the use of secretaries, and it is And you are accusing me of revising history! When vi was the standard editor and unix was the standard workstation, there was a thriving market for specialized secretary-machines. These used to be called "word processors" and came with rulers along the top etc. DEC had them, Wang had them (it was their specialty), many other companies did. The term "word processor" slowly changed its meaning and came to mean software, because it became no longer necessary to purchase specialized hardware for word processing for use by secretaries. > That's not true either; my bookkeeper/secretary/billing clerk > wife regaled me with horror stories of time lost to Windows and > other M$ "productivity" tools for over a decade, and started > that period by saying "and thus it has always been". Among the > haters of MS-Windows, clerical types probably have pride of > place far ahead of mere knowledgable programmers, the latter > having the advantage of knowing not merely that MS-Windows is > unfit for use, but also why that is so, and so are not > inconsolable like the clerks. If people truly saved less time than they gained, they would not use PCs. It is always fun to joke about something or the other. But that still doesn't actually mean any given set of "ethnic"s all behave the same way. Btw, emacs is better than vi :-) (Well, at one point I used to think so. Haven't bothered with either since editing became so much simplified that any tom-dick-harry's editor is highly usable compared to either vi or emacs, except for those who are religious about these things, or highly un-retrainable.)