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,a3c78c7d84418222 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Garbage Collection vs. the DSA Date: 1996/10/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 191600398 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <9610211437.AA06861@most> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > The point is, if the DSA had not been in the RM, ACT would not have a > DSA and so they would not have those $$ coming from attacted _new_ Ada > users. > > I have no idea what you are talking about, we implement many things, some > in the RM (like DSA) others not (like all the DEC extended import export > pragmas), and the choice is based on customer demand! This is not very hard to understand. It is simply stating that the chicken/egg dilemma for DSA does not exist and so you can't use DSA attracting new Ada users as any sort of argument suggesting that that is why DSA was done. DSA was done before this - as you well know. In fact, aspects of the GPL DSA implementation were done before we started real work on the IDL=>Ada mapping. It was even suggested and considered for a time that the mapping be based on, and thus require, the DSA. That position was rejected for a number of reasons. > That's the "too in-bred team" problem already mentioned. > > How do you know? This seems to be an argument that goes like this. Well, you don't know for sure. That is why it is in scare quotes. > I am right, I know I am. > Community X seems to disagree with me! > Therefore community X must be too inbred. > > There is another conclusion from these premises! Given that your argument isn't even valid I don't think this is what you wanged to say. What you really want to say is simply that the so called first premise is false. Shrug. Maybe. Maybe not. Could be either way. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com