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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8f8cea8602e61aba
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: The Red Language
Date: 1997/09/12
Message-ID: <EGEvE1.CD0@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271955774
References: <340ED5D8.2DEF6D3@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu> <dewar.873678467@merv>
 <5uvkfc$k1n$1@news.nyu.edu> <5vbntn$gsb@news.ida.org>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5vbntn$gsb@news.ida.org>, David Wheeler <dwheeler@ida.org> wrote:
>: There was an article "rating" Ada95, C, C++, and Java against Steelman
>: in the latest Ada Letters (XII.4).
>
>This paper is also available on-line.
>It's called "Ada, C, C++, and Java vs. The Steelman" and it's at:
>
>  http://www.adahome.com/History/Steelman/steeltab.htm
>
>This paper gives the exact Steelman text and how well each of these
>languages supports the Steelman requirement (with additional commentary).

The paper overall was good, but I must say I disagreed with some of the
ratings.  That is, I thought there were several cases where the paper
claimed that Ada met a requirement that it does not.  I also think that
some (small number) of the Steelman requirements were foolish, and it
was quite right of Jean Ichbiah to violate them (or, in a few cases,
where he should have been more bold, and violated them where he didn't).

- Bob