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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-12 11:53:09 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
From: Dillo <dillo@notmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional
Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of
 service attack.
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:52:22 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Message-ID: <9l6j97$k7b$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
References: <bebbba07.0107292308.d1192fc@posting.google.com>
  <slrn9ma7qp.nac.randhol@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
  <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <87n15lxzzv.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
 <yecofq03kih.fsf@king.cts.com> <3B672322.B5EA1B66@home.com>
 <ppsemtojqkqsqpfvj1th3mae8b4vu1tg89@4ax.com>
 <4a885870.0108112341.7ce02ac0@posting.google.com>
 <9l6ev5$lv3$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 42.20.4b.54
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Server-Date: 12 Aug 2001 18:52:23 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11822 comp.lang.c:73775
 comp.lang.c++:81946 comp.lang.functional:7493
Date: 2001-08-12T18:52:23+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 12 Aug 2001 17:38:45 GMT, Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi>
wrote:

>Will <wv9557@yahoo.com> scribbled the following
>on comp.lang.c:
>> theory: Ada could have rule the world as a superior language
>> Fact: it did not
>
>> theory: you could have write a better OS than NT, Linux, SunOS with Ada
>> Fact: there is *NO* Ada OS 
>
>> Why dont you Ada lovers go burn your NT, Linux, Sun OS box, because
>> theses OS are written in C.
>> See if you are left with an OS to write your Ada application.
>> Die, Ada, Die.
>
>Well, before Dennis Ritchie got his hands on the PDP-7 (PDP-9)
>computer over at Bell Labs, there was no C OS either. That didn't stop
>him from writing C. Why can't the same be applied to Ada?

That's not the ADA way. In ADA land you would first have to form a
committee to define the perfect computer. Then you would need another
committee to define the perfect OS. Once all of that committee work
was done, after a few decades, you could begin.

Wait a minute...that sounds a lot like how things are done in C++
land!!