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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,518abe6ba1515a51
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-12 17:10:27 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!lll-winken.llnl.gov!taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil!shimeall
From: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Subject: Re: Mike Feldman, meet Archie
Message-ID: <C3soHH.BMv@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Sender: news@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
References: <C3BJEx.5Gy@world.std.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 21:17:40 GMT
Date: 1993-03-12T21:17:40+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Your methodology is in serious trouble as a metric for Ada use.
It finds (as might be expected) anonymously-available Ada translators
(Ada-Ed) and language-specific bindings (Ada-Motif, Ada-X).  

But Many Ada-related tools don't have "Ada" as part of their name.
Consider:
    Anna (from Stanford)
    AFLEX/AYACC (from UC Irvine)
    ARCTURUS (from UC Irvine -- but not by anonymous ftp)
    SPEC (from NPS -- but not by anonymous ftp)
    etc.

If Archie was even as thorough as a "man -k" under unix, you might
have located these.  Since instead it is closer to a unix "find" call
you didn't have a chance.

Ask yourself, how much C usage would your methodology have located?
(Hint: it would miss "lint", "prof", "make", etc.)  I'd conjecture that your
results would have been comparable to the results of your Ada query.
					Tim