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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: C++ Standardization (was: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation) Date: 1996/10/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 188880977 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <325D29A3.308@itg-sepg.logicon.com> David Shochat writes: > Robert Dewar wrote: > > > > Well you have to remember that some people are working in environments which > > require a validated compiler and sometimes this requirement takes precedence > > over capability. > > Yes, I understand that. My point concerned those who make that argument > about Ada 95, and then conclude that we should use C++. It's an > incredible double standard given C++'s standardization status. Well, that's a rather charitable reading. I'd say (and have) it is just plain stupid. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com