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: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/06/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 162717400 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4q8fbo$701@red.interact.net.au> <874508446wnr@t-cubed.demon.co.uk> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4r19k9$b05@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes: > dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > ... > >Second, the issue of whether GNAT is or is not "good enought" for a > >commercial system is not particuarly dependent on validation anyway. > > Yes, that's my point. For many purposes, validation is not important, > and if e.g. Borland or Microsoft C/C++ is OK, then an unvalidated Ada > compiler ought to be OK too. Absolutely. Spot on point. > It seems to me that Ada and C/C++ are being held to different ^^^^^ > standards here. That's because they are.... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com