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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,70016ed51014902d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Warning: Flame Bait
Date: 1996/11/29
Message-ID: <E1nLxo.Ly3@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 201471437
references: <01bbdcb5$7500ab30$24af1486@pc-phw>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <01bbdcb5$7500ab30$24af1486@pc-phw>,
Paul Whittington <paul@sage.inel.gov> wrote:
>...The fact of the matter is that Ada is more portable,
>more scalable, and has a far more complete, tested and mature
>multithreading model than Java, including complete thread-safe programming
>support with full guarding capabilities. ...

I'm not a big fan of Java, but I don't see how anyone can say that Ada
is more portable than Java.  The Java language definition nails down all
kinds of things that are "implementation defined" or "unspecified" in
Ada.

- Bob